Author
Topic: ESA leading us back to the Moon (Read 64628 times)

Apparently the incoming leadership of ESA is speaking about literally reaching for the Moon after the ISS is deorbited. There's been hints that ESA, in addition to the international community in general, has been taking an interest in the Moon of late while NASA speaks of Mars. However, Johann-Dietrich Wörner (the new ESA chief) spoke more specifically about looking into a lunar base as ESA's next step after their duty with the ISS is completed.

If anyone has more details on Wörner's moon plans do post them here, as they seem indicative of a promising direction of human space flight.

As for this direction in general, I approve. We all know the basic logic behind the Moon: it's a helluvalot closer to us than Mars. NASA brags about Orion taking us to Mars...but by itself Orion can't safely do anything beyond circling Luna or visiting its Lagrange points; the fact ESA's building its service module seems foreboding coupled with ESA's lunar preference. ESA seems to approach this logically, whereas NASA is attempting a great leap when it can't honestly repeat the effort made 40+ years ago (a less-than-secret embarrassment shared by engineers and enthusiasts).

Unless NASA establishes the technologies needed for Mars (ISRU, aerocapture, maybe SEP), the Moon is the only thing in our reach. On the other hand, we already have the means for lunar travel: HLVs, a crewed orbiter...just add lander and the set is complete. Hypothetically, ESA might develop the lander and even spearhead the moon base it's chief suggested.

Won't ESA have to figure out a way to do reusable launch vehicles first? If so many others are flying reusable vehicles by then while reaping the cost benefits, then won't ESA look horribly outdated and appear to be bleeding money by trying to continue with higher pursuits while using discardable vehicles?

Will ESA somehow be able to put into practice reusable spaceflight technology as a stepping stone to these higher pursuits like the Moon, etc? Will it mean somehow radically restructuring Arianespace? Otherwise, how will they proceed without addressing this fundamental issue?

Won't ESA have to figure out a way to do reusable launch vehicles first? If so many others are flying reusable vehicles by then while reaping the cost benefits, then won't ESA look horribly outdated and appear to be bleeding money by trying to continue with higher pursuits while using discardable vehicles?

Will ESA somehow be able to put into practice reusable spaceflight technology as a stepping stone to these higher pursuits like the Moon, etc?

Define flying, since we are also dealing with the Moon's airless environment. Second, look at how well NASA's 'reuseable' shuttle went, and why bother developing a vehicle when vehicles like Dragon and the European version of Dream Chaser could be rented instead. Third, elaborating from the second point, that would free up ESA (or any space agency) to focus on the lunar vehicles - without reentry or aerodynamics a pure space vehicle just needs to be refueled before reuse, then perhaps deorbited when its warranty is up.

Otherwise, how will they proceed without addressing this fundamental issue?

One step at a time like anyone else. ESA, JAXA, and China's agency came into being decades after NASA, and considering NASA regressed from Apollo to the space shuttle and to Orion the playing field is mostly level frankly...especially if it's not LEO but Cislunar & interplanetary space you're looking at. ESA will have hurdles to cross to land on the Moon...but so will NASA. ESA, much like China too, is going slow and steady whereas NASA leaps, trips, and falls on its face.

Won't ESA have to figure out a way to do reusable launch vehicles first? If so many others are flying reusable vehicles by then while reaping the cost benefits, then won't ESA look horribly outdated and appear to be bleeding money by trying to continue with higher pursuits while using discardable vehicles?

Will ESA somehow be able to put into practice reusable spaceflight technology as a stepping stone to these higher pursuits like the Moon, etc? Will it mean somehow radically restructuring Arianespace? Otherwise, how will they proceed without addressing this fundamental issue?

I don't understand why everything needs to start at the beginning every time, re-inventing what other companies are doing. We already have solutions for getting into LEO and these are solutions that would cost far less than anything ESA could develop and build. You only need to build an RLV if you want to get into the LEO business at an affordable level - It has nothing to do with getting to the moon.

If ESA want to go to the moon then build the bits that take you from LEO to the moon and ignore the Earth stuff. They can get their hardware into LEO and then hire SpaceX, ULA or whoever as a "taxi" to get them to earth orbit and go from there. In 2025 when ISS is no more, what are SpaceX or ULA or whoever, going to charge to get a crew into LEO? Going to be far less than it would cost ESA to build their own.

Apparently the incoming leadership of ESA is speaking about literally reaching for the Moon after the ISS is deorbited. There's been hints that ESA, in addition to the international community in general, has been taking an interest in the Moon of late while NASA speaks of Mars. However, Johann-Dietrich Wörner (the new ESA chief) spoke more specifically about looking into a lunar base as ESA's next step after their duty with the ISS is completed.

If anyone has more details on Wörner's moon plans do post them here, as they seem indicative of a promising direction of human space flight.

As for this direction in general, I approve. We all know the basic logic behind the Moon: it's a helluvalot closer to us than Mars. NASA brags about Orion taking us to Mars...but by itself Orion can't safely do anything beyond circling Luna or visiting its Lagrange points; the fact ESA's building its service module seems foreboding coupled with ESA's lunar preference. ESA seems to approach this logically, whereas NASA is attempting a great leap when it can't honestly repeat the effort made 40+ years ago (a less-than-secret embarrassment shared by engineers and enthusiasts).

Unless NASA establishes the technologies needed for Mars (ISRU, aerocapture, maybe SEP), the Moon is the only thing in our reach. On the other hand, we already have the means for lunar travel: HLVs, a crewed orbiter...just add lander and the set is complete. Hypothetically, ESA might develop the lander and even spearhead the moon base it's chief suggested.

Generally I think ESA should/could build a lunar base.Or I don't think ESA has much political support for Mars bases [not now, or within a decade].So I think NASA should focus on building a Mars base [or bases] and ESA should focus in terms of ultimate goal within next 2 decades, of building a lunar base [or bases].But America is more private sector and not as much governmental control of markets- and what exciting about the moon is it's commercial potential. Or most commercial ventures from Europe, China, Japan, and Russia would dominated by governmental projects [such as Arianespace]. Or if American did things like Europe, an American lunar base would Lockheed and/or Boeing lunar base- not a Bigelow lunar base [though Bigelow might be sub contractor of say Boeing].

So I would have US lead in terms of exploring the Moon, then ESA might put some lunar base on Moon, but NASA instead of trying to play some dominate role in lunar base building, instead shifts to exploring Mars and making it's governmental bases Mars bases, rather than lunar bases. But America private sector could be involved in mining or lunar base building, while NASA explores Mars.

And maybe at some point after 20 or more years other nations may become interested in having Mars bases, also. Or maybe not.

I don't understand why everything needs to start at the beginning every time, re-inventing what other companies are doing. We already have solutions for getting into LEO and these are solutions that would cost far less than anything ESA could develop and build. You only need to build an RLV if you want to get into the LEO business at an affordable level - It has nothing to do with getting to the moon.

If ESA want to go to the moon then build the bits that take you from LEO to the moon and ignore the Earth stuff. They can get their hardware into LEO and then hire SpaceX, ULA or whoever as a "taxi" to get them to earth orbit and go from there. In 2025 when ISS is no more, what are SpaceX or ULA or whoever, going to charge to get a crew into LEO? Going to be far less than it would cost ESA to build their own.

Okay, so I was waiting for someone to say this stuff. At that point, then it's going to be less of an ESA effort to create a moonbase, and is going to be more of a multinational effort. And maybe that's the way it ought to be - make it a multi-national project, like the ISS was, in order to distribute the costs. (yeah, yeah, I know ISS caused a lot of collaborational headaches, due to its multi-national nature.)

Otherwise, would ESA/EU find it politically palatable to carry out such a major European project that's totally dependent on foreign service providers? I doubt it for something that's much more than a mere space probe mission. Make it multi-national project and then ESA/EU might accept it.

considering NASA regressed from Apollo to the space shuttle and to Orion the playing field is mostly level frankly...

That is an untrue characterization. How many space agencies have gone past Mars or to Mercury? Who has two rovers on Mars?

This is in regards to manned flight. However, ESA does have the precedence of being the first to land on Titan and a comet. They also built the ATV, which was larger than Progress or the current batch of commercial ships. They're not slacking either.

This is in regards to manned flight. However, ESA does have the precedence of being the first to land on Titan....They also built the ATV, which was larger than Progress or the current batch of commercial ships.

It was carried there by a NASA spacecraft. Size doesn't matter in that case, cost does.

I don't understand why everything needs to start at the beginning every time, re-inventing what other companies are doing. We already have solutions for getting into LEO and these are solutions that would cost far less than anything ESA could develop and build. You only need to build an RLV if you want to get into the LEO business at an affordable level - It has nothing to do with getting to the moon.

Answer: generational gaps. A reason things can't just be rebuilt is that the people who made them aren't around. For example, Blackstar pointed out that there isn't a 'common spaceprobe' because it isn't uncommon for 5 years or longer between (especially the larger) missions; as I believe he put it if you called up a company asking to rebuild a robotic arm they built the answering may reply "Sir I was in high school when that mission was flown." Space-rated components are usually custom built because it is a harsh job they deal with. As a result, because Apollo is much faded from living memory it can't be duplicated on a whim.

If ESA want to go to the moon then build the bits that take you from LEO to the moon and ignore the Earth stuff. They can get their hardware into LEO and then hire SpaceX, ULA or whoever as a "taxi" to get them to earth orbit and go from there. In 2025 when ISS is no more, what are SpaceX or ULA or whoever, going to charge to get a crew into LEO? Going to be far less than it would cost ESA to build their own.

That will be up to the space agencies to declare in interest. Space X and ULA, as examples, will still have rockets and satellites to launch to keep them in business. Private entities might request flights...but more likely NASA will request the vehicles even without the ISS just to have a vehicle and not suffer the embarrassment of renting from Russia.

Can't predict everything, but I would like to see ESA poke and convince NASA to abandon the asteroid schemes and go for the Moon if not Mars.

ESA's human spaceflight budget would only cover a small fraction of the cost of a lunar base. IMO it's pretty irrelevant what ESA thinks wrt. human spaceflight BEO. They will go along with whatever NASA does.

Won't ESA have to figure out a way to do reusable launch vehicles first? If so many others are flying reusable vehicles by then while reaping the cost benefits, then won't ESA look horribly outdated and appear to be bleeding money by trying to continue with higher pursuits while using discardable vehicles?

There is very little glory in having a rival to the Dragon, Orion, CST-100, Dreamchaser and Soyuz. There is plenty of glory in having a transfer vehicle and somethng else NASA does not have a manned lunar lander.

There is very little glory in having a rival to the Dragon, Orion, CST-100, Dreamchaser and Soyuz. There is plenty of glory in having a transfer vehicle and somethng else NASA does not have a manned lunar lander.

Agreed, and if ESA plays its cards right it could supply a lunar lander and exchange services with NASA's Orion (if it doesn't just rent from commercial flights). Considering NASA already needs ESA for the Orion service module, a lunar mission works further in ESA's favor.

Perhaps a setup could be done with ESA launching the lander into LEO aboard one of the Arianes. Next NASA launches an SLS with the Orion and EUS. After docking, the EUS would propel the duo into lunar space (orbit or Lagrange points) whereupon things go much like the old Apollo missions. Whether there's a moon base or reuseability depend on NASA/ESA agreements.

Apparently the incoming leadership of ESA is speaking about literally reaching for the Moon after the ISS is deorbited... As for this direction in general, I approve. We all know the basic logic behind the Moon: it's a helluvalot closer to us than Mars.

Going to the Moon is a logical choice for those that have never left LEO - which is every country in the world except the U.S. Plus, due to the general advancement of technology since the 60's, and the experience many countries are getting on the ISS, it's getting less expensive to go to the Moon.

I'll be cheering them on.

Quote

NASA brags about Orion taking us to Mars...but by itself Orion can't safely do anything beyond circling Luna or visiting its Lagrange points;

Let's remember that NASA doesn't yet have an organized effort to go to Mars, just bits and pieces that various factions think are helpful. So we're in kind of a holding pattern right now for what comes next...

Quote

...the fact ESA's building its service module seems foreboding coupled with ESA's lunar preference. ESA seems to approach this logically, whereas NASA is attempting a great leap when it can't honestly repeat the effort made 40+ years ago (a less-than-secret embarrassment shared by engineers and enthusiasts).

I'm not sure I see enough hardware being built to be convinced ESA is really going, but the LEO hardware they do have is pretty good. I think they are capable of building whatever they need.

Quote

Unless NASA establishes the technologies needed for Mars (ISRU, aerocapture, maybe SEP), the Moon is the only thing in our reach. On the other hand, we already have the means for lunar travel: HLVs, a crewed orbiter...just add lander and the set is complete. Hypothetically, ESA might develop the lander and even spearhead the moon base it's chief suggested.

Essentially you're saying the only way ESA will get to the Moon is if NASA takes them there? How is that an ESA Moon program?

Somehow I don't think that's what ESA is thinking about doing...

Logged

If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Unless NASA establishes the technologies needed for Mars (ISRU, aerocapture, maybe SEP), the Moon is the only thing in our reach. On the other hand, we already have the means for lunar travel: HLVs, a crewed orbiter...just add lander and the set is complete. Hypothetically, ESA might develop the lander and even spearhead the moon base it's chief suggested.

Essentially you're saying the only way ESA will get to the Moon is if NASA takes them there? How is that an ESA Moon program?

Somehow I don't think that's what ESA is thinking about doing...

ESA has used NASA numerous times to reach their goals, but naturally they don't wish to be fully dependent on anyone. It will likely be at least a decade before they create a fully functional European crew vehicle, but perhaps in half that time they may have a new highly capable autonomous vehicle a step better than ATV. They may still need the Orion for delivering crew, but they could develop spacecraft like a Deep Space Habitat and lunar landers; mainly it is just mastering reentry ESA is behind. What I'm thinking is more along the lines of NASA needing ESA and providing the one element ESA lacks.

ESA might simply partner with Russia to do this. We know the Russians are looking at that L1 station and will have plans for a large Orion like crew vehicle that would be adequate for trips in cis-lunar space. ESA landers and surface habitats would pair just as well with what Russia will have as it will with American equipment, as we both have over-sized launchers and crew vehicles in the works. And ESA has a good working relationship with Roscosmos and other up and coming space agencies may also come on-board.

I think this kind of growing international co-operative moon exploration will inevitably pull the US back in to lunar activity simply to avoid being left out.

ESA might simply partner with Russia to do this. We know the Russians are looking at that L1 station and will have plans for a large Orion like crew vehicle that would be adequate for trips in cis-lunar space. ESA landers and surface habitats would pair just as well with what Russia will have as it will with American equipment, as we both have over-sized launchers and crew vehicles in the works. And ESA has a good working relationship with Roscosmos and other up and coming space agencies may also come on-board.

I dunno...the recent loss of Progress, Phobos-Grunt, numerous schedule delays for Russian ISS modules, the Soviet Phobos...not an encouraging track record. However, the decision is ESA's, but they could just as easily partner with any of the Asian agencies. I'd like to see ESA develop vehicles that can dock with whatever they want, and no doubt that is what they'd prefer too.

I think this kind of growing international co-operative moon exploration will inevitably pull the US back in to lunar activity simply to avoid being left out.

Epic agree there. There will be a paradigm shift the moment administrations change, and if everyone insists on the Moon NASA will meekly nod in that direction, possibly while still claiming "it's still the path to Mars!"

Epic agree there. There will be a paradigm shift the moment administrations change, and if everyone insists on the Moon NASA will meekly nod in that direction, possibly while still claiming "it's still the path to Mars!"

Mars Transfer Vehicles are too big to be lifted from Earth fully fuelled so they will need some form of assembly in space. LEO is a good place to build the space-shipyard. EML-1 and EML-2 are good places to fuel the vehicle and for the crews to join. This means the same spacestations and SEPs can be used for lunar and Mars trips.

Essentially you're saying the only way ESA will get to the Moon is if NASA takes them there? How is that an ESA Moon program?

Somehow I don't think that's what ESA is thinking about doing...

ESA has 3 major choices:

1. All European mission that will land on the Moon in about 30 years time. Build the capsule first and then the lander. All that development work will be expensive.

2. All European mission that will land on the Moon in about 15 years time. Build the capsule and lander simultaneously, Apollo style. Cost so high that in these austere times that pensions will have to be cancelled - expect riots.

3. Mixed mission that will land on the Moon in about 15 years time. Build the lander and obtain transport to LEO from the Americans and/or Russians. About half the cost of option 2.

I suspect that ESA will go for the quickest and cheapest option which is option 3.

While it is true that Roscosmos has had it's share of delays and failures they are still making progress on their program of record, the Angara rocket and the large crew capsule which is comparable to the pace of progress being made in the SLS/Orion, so they should both be available at around the same time. And while unmanned Roscosmos equipment fails regularly they have not had a lose of life in manned space flight in ages, a point the ESA would value highly. Remember ESA astronauts are already being trusted to Soyuz launches and the new capsule may be the Russian ride to ISS briefly which would get the Europeans riding on it. On the other hand their is a long history of attempted partnerships between ESA and Roscosmos that have fallen through so it is by no means assured.

Epic agree there. There will be a paradigm shift the moment administrations change, and if everyone insists on the Moon NASA will meekly nod in that direction, possibly while still claiming "it's still the path to Mars!"

Presidents don't control the Space Program, and even if they did the same party might retain the White house which should presumably result in no change. I think the change of the administration AND the party are both irreverent.

What I expect is that Congress gets all worried about 'losing Americas leadership position in Space' and actually ponies up the money for a lunar lander or lets NASA do some kind of lunar COTS program, and instructs NASA to partner with other nations in returning to the moon.

Note that is it not the idea of the Chinese or the Russians or even ESA landing on the moon individually that is goigng to scare people, that can always be dismissed as a 'rehash' of Apollo, it's the idea that they all might start cooperating together with any one of the three being the new 'leader' of that join venture. That's a pattern America would be very worried about because it would be a clear signal that the US is not the one and only possible leader of any international endeavour.

While it is true that Roscosmos has had it's share of delays and failures they are still making progress on their program of record, the Angara rocket and the large crew capsule which is comparable to the pace of progress being made in the SLS/Orion, so they should both be available at around the same time. And while unmanned Roscosmos equipment fails regularly they have not had a lose of life in manned space flight in ages, a point the ESA would value highly. Remember ESA astronauts are already being trusted to Soyuz launches and the new capsule may be the Russian ride to ISS briefly which would get the Europeans riding on it. On the other hand their is a long history of attempted partnerships between ESA and Roscosmos that have fallen through so it is by no means assured.

Epic agree there. There will be a paradigm shift the moment administrations change, and if everyone insists on the Moon NASA will meekly nod in that direction, possibly while still claiming "it's still the path to Mars!"

Presidents don't control the Space Program, and even if they did the same party might retain the White house which should presumably result in no change. I think the change of the administration AND the party are both irreverent.

What I expect is that Congress gets all worried about 'losing Americas leadership position in Space' and actually ponies up the money for a lunar lander or lets NASA do some kind of lunar COTS program, and instructs NASA to partner with other nations in returning to the moon.

Note that is it not the idea of the Chinese or the Russians or even ESA landing on the moon individually that is goigng to scare people, that can always be dismissed as a 'rehash' of Apollo, it's the idea that they all might start cooperating together with any one of the three being the new 'leader' of that join venture. That's a pattern America would be very worried about because it would be a clear signal that the US is not the one and only possible leader of any international endeavour.

It's seems pretty obvious it would not worry Obama. And it's unclear whether it would concern Clinton- or Clinton didn't say much about Obama's foreign policy.But not sure I would worry about it. Or my reaction could be to strengthen the existing cooperation with ISS and lead in space exploration.And lead would be to determine if there is minable lunar water, and then go to Mars.

Essentially you're saying the only way ESA will get to the Moon is if NASA takes them there? How is that an ESA Moon program?

Somehow I don't think that's what ESA is thinking about doing...

ESA has 3 major choices:

1. All European mission that will land on the Moon in about 30 years time. Build the capsule first and then the lander. All that development work will be expensive.

2. All European mission that will land on the Moon in about 15 years time. Build the capsule and lander simultaneously, Apollo style. Cost so high that in these austere times that pensions will have to be cancelled - expect riots.

3. Mixed mission that will land on the Moon in about 15 years time. Build the lander and obtain transport to LEO from the Americans and/or Russians. About half the cost of option 2.

I suspect that ESA will go for the quickest and cheapest option which is option 3.

My thoughts exactly. They'll want to exploit their partnerships with NASA, Russia, ect. to achieve a significant goal at a reasonable price.

Isn't ESA going to get a capsule or vehicle of some kind to launch people in regardless? They have speculated on this for so long with Klipper, man-rated ATV concepts etc etc. It now looks like Dream Chaser might be their vehicle and naturally they would put it on Ariane V. It dose not look like gaining this capability will break the bank as they are only looking to do a LEO-taxi type vehicle and they already have the launch vehicle to put it on.

ESA is also doing the Service Module for Orion, but my understanding is that these are essentially ATVs with the cargo section chopped off (minimal development cost) AND these modules are being bartered to the US in exchange for ISS usage, the same thing ATV did. So the production of these service modules doesn't earn ESA trips on Orion to BLEO.

ESA is also doing the Service Module for Orion, but my understanding is that these are essentially ATVs with the cargo section chopped off (minimal development cost) AND these modules are being bartered to the US in exchange for ISS usage, the same thing ATV did. So the production of these service modules doesn't earn ESA trips on Orion to BLEO.

It is just like SLS. "Based on" but with enough changes to make sure the development effort is bigger than buiding from scratch.

What's with all the silly posts here that assume that ESA would even have a remotely realistic chance of pulling off a manned lunar base on their own?

Not gonna happen, at least not on their own and not even with Russia involved. I would even say: particularly not with Russia involved.ESA is very much big-space-styled and will need a several mammoth tanker-loads of Euros to pull off a lunar base. That money isn't there

Then why is it that the new DG pitches a lunar base? Simple: a lunar base is seen (from ESA perspective) as more affordable and less of a risk than going to Mars. The new DG making this pitch is just sending a message to NASA.

1. Isn't ESA going to get a capsule or vehicle of some kind to launch people in regardless? They have speculated on this for so long with Klipper, man-rated ATV concepts etc etc. It now looks like Dream Chaser might be their vehicle and naturally they would put it on Ariane V. It dose not look like gaining this capability will break the bank as they are only looking to do a LEO-taxi type vehicle and they already have the launch vehicle to put it on.

2. ESA is also doing the Service Module for Orion, but my understanding is that these are essentially ATVs with the cargo section chopped off (minimal development cost) AND these modules are being bartered to the US in exchange for ISS usage, the same thing ATV did. So the production of these service modules doesn't earn ESA trips on Orion to BLEO.

1. DC is not their vehicle. That was just some talk

2. No, the Orion SM is not just a ATV SM. It is a complete redesign. The key words are "based on" the ATV

3. Mixed mission that will land on the Moon in about 15 years time. Build the lander and obtain transport to LEO from the Americans and/or Russians. About half the cost of option 2.

I suspect that ESA will go for the quickest and cheapest option which is option 3.

If this happens, it will be Europe going with the Americans, I'm sure of it. Considering that Europe is a lot closer politically to the USA than our geographical noisy neighbour who occasionally accuses us of naziism and state failure in dedicated propaganda. If this had been possible 10 years ago, it would have been a lot more ambiguous and we would have been a lot more open to collaboration.

Edit:

Quote from: woods107

What's with all the silly posts here that assume that ESA would even have a remotely realistic chance of pulling off a manned lunar base on their own?

Whilst I wouldn't say the posts are silly as such, I would agree that it's unlikely to occur, not because the ESA doesn't have enough money, but due to too many organisational/political issues. I would say the best shot of man going back to the moon would be any (American) cis-lunar mars preparation program evolving into a dedicated moon base program by way of policy changes.

Mr Wörner has at least a vision in terms of European human space exploration, that´s quite rare among European space politicians. But let´s remember he´ll be only the chief of ESA. A manned European lunar programme would be really great, but also need strong political support from ESA´s member states. I´m afraid but I don´t see this happen too soon.

3. Mixed mission that will land on the Moon in about 15 years time. Build the lander and obtain transport to LEO from the Americans and/or Russians. About half the cost of option 2.

I suspect that ESA will go for the quickest and cheapest option which is option 3.

What do the Russians have that the Europeans don't have transportation-wise? Ariane 5/6 can loft more than Proton, and from what I can tell Angara A5 too.

And we already know from studies that ULA has released that ULA feels that establishing an enduring presence on the Moon can be done with existing launchers in the 20mt to LEO range (i.e. Atlas 5, Delta IV Heavy, Arian 5/6, Proton, etc.). No doubt the Europeans are aware of that study too.

The challenge with depending on the U.S. is that they have been burned before with a waffling U.S. Congress. Plus, not to debate this, but no one knows how long the SLS will be around, and the Europeans would be concerned with building any hardware that could be orphaned due to decisions made out of their hands.

So to me I think if they are serious about going to the Moon that they will initially focus on what it would take to do it using existing launchers, and specifically with the launchers they own.

3. Mixed mission that will land on the Moon in about 15 years time. Build the lander and obtain transport to LEO from the Americans and/or Russians. About half the cost of option 2.

I suspect that ESA will go for the quickest and cheapest option which is option 3.

What do the Russians have that the Europeans don't have transportation-wise? Ariane 5/6 can loft more than Proton, and from what I can tell Angara A5 too.

And we already know from studies that ULA has released that ULA feels that establishing an enduring presence on the Moon can be done with existing launchers in the 20mt to LEO range (i.e. Atlas 5, Delta IV Heavy, Arian 5/6, Proton, etc.). No doubt the Europeans are aware of that study too.

The challenge with depending on the U.S. is that they have been burned before with a waffling U.S. Congress. Plus, not to debate this, but no one knows how long the SLS will be around, and the Europeans would be concerned with building any hardware that could be orphaned due to decisions made out of their hands.

So to me I think if they are serious about going to the Moon that they will initially focus on what it would take to do it using existing launchers, and specifically with the launchers they own.

As general metric, it seems before landing a lunar base, one would would start by landing robotic mission to the lunar surface. Or the Chinese in this respect are leading.

But perhaps before landing robotic missions one think about increasing the size of the payload one get to Lunar surface. In that regard, the US is in the lead.

If one plans to have lunar base and one planning to rocket with 20 ton to LEO or less than 10 ton to high earth orbit, then it seems one needs at least have LEO docking, so have two or more 20 ton to LEO rockets which are mated to then go to high earth orbit. Or something like Gemini, ie, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gemini#Lunar_landingOr one makes a depot in LEO.It seems to me that having a re-usable launch vehicle is quite an advantage in regard to a depot in LEO.Though I guess if one just had depot in higher earth, it could also be supplied by re-usable launch vehicle.

So options are docking spacecraft to spacecraft, or having depot at LEO in which spacecraft dock. Or having depot only at say EML-1. Or depot at LEO and high earth orbit. And in regard to any of these options, other then experience with space station operations, no nation has done preliminary activity needed for this, which would be needed prior to establishing a lunar base.

Now way I could see ESA being involved in having a lunar base, would be related to NASA exploring the Moon to determine if and where there is commercial minable lunar water.

And I would have NASA first begin this lunar exploration program, by starting a robotic exploration subset program of the Lunar program- which is what NASA did with Apollo- but of course we in the 21 century so we have more robotic capability- as compared to then. So as part of Lunar exploration start with a lot robotic missions to the Moon. But also NASA should develop depot operational capability, which going to used for Lunar and Mars exploration program. And the operation of depot will involve robotic docking.So have depot at KSC inclination, and what the rocket fuel at depot would start out being used for is refueling robotic missions which are beyond LEO. So for Moon or Mars or large telescopes and missions not going to either of these destinations.And once one does a few years of lunar robotic exploration of the moon, one completes the lunar exploration with crew going to lunar surface. Then one starts the Mars program [robots and crew going to Mars surface].So ESA with knowledge of where the best locations to get lunar water, could plan to have lunar base nearsuch a location.Now with NASA lunar program it lasts for 10 years, with say up to 8 years of which starts with robotic lunar exploration, and 2 years of crewed exploration. And 5 year into the NASA lunar program, ESA may be started with it's program which involves having lunar base. The purpose of having a lunar base could be numerous reasons.Perhaps it's research and develop technology of lunar mining- water, iron, glass, etc. It could longer term goal of making solar panels on the Moon, so mining being something test first, with idea going towards such a goal. Or perhaps the focus could be more relate making "bases" or living areas from lunar material.Or exploration of the Moon in more detail- such lunar surface is record of solar activity. Or say making lunar telescopes.It could be a host of things, but it could also have some particular focus or two.

So if ESA seriously starts lunar base program five year or more after NASA starts it's lunar program, NASA could already have developed depots in LEO. And so ESA also build depots at it's inclination. Or could instead could build depot at high earth orbit. Or both.And anyhow once the Moon has explored for 5 year already, then one could have better idea of where and what kind base one wants, and plus other countries would also be interested in having lunar bases. Of course this also applies to the private sector in general.

And I would have NASA first begin this lunar exploration program, by starting a robotic exploration subset program of the Lunar program- which is what NASA did with Apollo- but of course we in the 21 century so we have more robotic capability- as compared to then. So as part of Lunar exploration start with a lot robotic missions to the Moon.

Why do we need to send a whole new fleet of robotic explorers before sending humans? Have we lost all of the data from dozens of robotic and manned missions to the Moon over 57 years?

We don't need repeat Apollo to go to the same destination.

Logged

If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

I think there should be an investigation of the lunar poles and of propellent storage before choosing the fuel for your lunar lander. Methane may be better than hydrogen for example, or maybe it is all to hard and we should go with hyrazine delivered to lunar orbit with SEP. Starting unmanned is a good way to not lock youself into a bad design right from the beginning.

My preferred approach is "Lander first" instead of HLV first. Of the different components such as Launcher, Command module, Lunar lander and lunar ascent, the lander is the thing that can potentially be used immediately, in an unmanned cargo only mode. Being unmanned you can send it on slower routes and do not need to send and return the command module, so you probably do not need an HLV. It might involve developing a SEP tug but imo it would be silly to delay that.

This makes the lander and the articles it lands central to the mission, rather than the situation in the US where the mission is merely whatever justifies the SLS, and actually getting to the moon only a nice-to-have.

If the lander ends up being all you get, at least you get an ever growing teleoperated robotic base with progress on rovers and ISRU and science. This is much better than getting a launcher and no money for missions.

And I would have NASA first begin this lunar exploration program, by starting a robotic exploration subset program of the Lunar program- which is what NASA did with Apollo- but of course we in the 21 century so we have more robotic capability- as compared to then. So as part of Lunar exploration start with a lot robotic missions to the Moon.

Why do we need to send a whole new fleet of robotic explorers before sending humans? Have we lost all of the data from dozens of robotic and manned missions to the Moon over 57 years?

We don't need repeat Apollo to go to the same destination.

Lunar polar region is quite dissimilar to Apollo which was the near side and not anywhere near the poles.

I would say we need to explore both poles. Not necessarily both poles equally, but I don't think one should start out before any exploration is done by excluding either pole. So one roughly say that takes two landing missions of some sort. And roughly I think a landing in dark crater, a rim, and not in a crater or rim. Could have impactor type probes. Beacon/relay for dark crater and/or any exploration not in line of sight of earth. Could robotic lander as related later to Manned landing. Robotic includes depot operations and orbiter type missions.And how many can one make in less than 8 years?? though probably many of them can be quite small.So anyhow more than 4 probably and could be dozens which have many smaller missions from one launcher. Or say in total mass landed could be around 20 tons [as guess], or in terms of total payload mass to LEO say around 100 tons or more. Or roughly equal to 1 or 2 Saturn V launches.But I think the main constraint making so many robotic missions in a relatively short time period.But with Apollo and dealing with about same time period, one had Ranger series, and Explorer series.Wiki:"Ranger was originally designed, beginning in 1959, in three distinct phases, called "blocks". Each block had different mission objectives and progressively more advanced system design. ...Total research, development, launch, and support costs for the Ranger series of spacecraft (Rangers 1 through 9) was approximately $170 million."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_programAnd:The Surveyor program was a NASA program that, from June, 1966 through January, 1968, sent seven robotic spacecraft to the surface of the Moon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_programThey should have much better success rate as compared to these programs. And could be much more capable. Or it can in sense can be as simple and crude and/or smaller. I am not going try to give a detail list them, but broadly there can many small and a few large robotic lunar missions. Whatever is needed to get information that is needed is answer the question, is there minable lunar water and what locations are better places to mine lunar water? And don't care about some broadly speaking survey, but rather type region one is looking for are the size of football field or looking for small region in which 100,000 tons of water can be mined in 10 or 20 year period of time. Or one is probably not going to start out with mining region larger than 5 km square [25 square km] rather it's probably going to be confined to less than 1 square km. Or that is my assumption, though lunar exploration might indicate otherwise.

Why would you expect ESA to provide development money for Dream Chaser? It wouldn't be built in Europe, nor would it benefit European industry. If they were to use DC, it would be as a paying customer.

Mr Wörner has at least a vision in terms of European human space exploration, that´s quite rare among European space politicians. But let´s remember he´ll be only the chief of ESA. A manned European lunar programme would be really great, but also need strong political support from ESA´s member states. I´m afraid but I don´t see this happen too soon.

I don't think it really counts as a "vision" if it's completely unrealistic and obvious -- completely unrealistic because there's nowhere close to enough money available in ESA and obvious because it's an obvious plan to come up with if there were huge amounts of money.

The scantily outlined details for getting to the moon seem to involve heavy collaboration with the United States. The article implies Europeans on Orion (which was probable anyway if the flight rate gets up).

The scantily outlined details for getting to the moon seem to involve heavy collaboration with the United States. The article implies Europeans on Orion (which was probable anyway if the flight rate gets up).

NASA seems to be hell-bent on doing flags and footprints on Mars instead of a sustained human presence on the Moon, so good luck with that.

The bit I have seen I like. It looks like primarily cooperating on a (presumably high) lunar orbit outpost (which ties in nicely with ARM), then things like teleoperation and robotic sample return, with human access an eventual goal.

Current considerations and conceptual work reflectedin the ISECG Global Exploration Roadmap foresee thedevelopment of a staging post in the lunar vicinity.Such a staging post advances lunar surface explorationcapabilities and deep space exploration. It opensup options for innovative approaches and missionscenarios for lunar exploration, such as humanassistedrobotic surface operations (e.g. tele-operationsof automated lunar surface infrastructures), as well asrefurbishment of re-usable lunar lander.

The scantily outlined details for getting to the moon seem to involve heavy collaboration with the United States. The article implies Europeans on Orion (which was probable anyway if the flight rate gets up).

If I was inside NASA and believed in Moon first and not the administrations declared, but largely unfunded, Mars goal I'd ask my friends in ESA to put their intentions out there.

Moon first is the only thing that makes sense in timeframe, available technology and current funding.

Much the technology needed already exists in industry, including launch vehicles. NASA and partners should contract for those items needed. Provide a performance requirement and let the creative minds of industry present solutions. Items like tugs, fuel depots, ISRU technology can all come from industry.

As for doing it without the U.S. And partnering with Russia. That's an idea doomed to fail. Russis is already having problems maintaining their capabilities. Once SpaceX guts their commercial launches and the U.S. Can launch crews domestically and Russia losses that funding I expect to see their launch industry to have ever more problems. The only thing that saves Russia space capability is a better government.

The moon will be first and it's going to happen after the ISS. Thank you ESA for advancing the conversation.

"The European development of the service module forNASA’s Orion crew transportation vehicle togetherwith the development of an international lunar landingcapability with Roscosmos provides a sustained role forESA in such architecture."[my emphasis]

This is the first I've heard of this co-development of a lunar-lander with Roscosmos. Is this an aspiration or a funded activity?

This is the first I've heard of this co-development of a lunar-lander with Roscosmos. Is this an aspiration or a funded activity?

I'd say notional. The media (and far before that, we) would be all over that if there was anything substantial there.

Anybody who follows ESA a little closer have an opinion (or evidence) on that?

Reboot of the German lunar lander initiative that got bumped at the 2012 Ministerial conference, now under the flag of international cooperation. It's not notional. This got initial approvement at the 2014 Ministerial conference. It was one of trades that flew below the radar at the latest conference because all attention was going to Ariane 6 and the associated stand-off between Germany and France.

This comes from organization which failed to create a financially sustainable LEO cargo delivery craft. Not confidence-inspiring.

There never was a requirement to make ESA's LEO cargo delivery craft (aka ATV) 'financially sustainable'. In the traditional aerospace community - regardless of being governance or industry - you never get what you don't ask for.

In an interview with German weekly Spiegel due to be published in print the coming monday Wörner has apparently declared he wants Europe to have an autonomous way into space and that in his opinion Ariane 5 could be turned into a manned launcher for this purpose within 4-5 years.

Eh, Wörner will (metaphorically) just bring that with him when he switches over from DLR... which does provide some funding for Dream Chaser, at least until 2017. Besides, under CCiCap SNC's DC is 96% funded by now.

The only way I can see ESA using DreamChaser is if SierraNevada were to relocate significant portions of the DC logistics and supply chain to Europe particularly France and Germany (SN has some presence in Europe already). The actual vehicle/s might be manufactured in the US but because most of the money is spent in flying and maintaining it ESA would demand that money stay in Europe.

In an interview with German weekly Spiegel due to be published in print the coming monday Wörner has apparently declared he wants Europe to have an autonomous way into space and that in his opinion Ariane 5 could be turned into a manned launcher for this purpose within 4-5 years.

Well, they've gotta' use Ariane for something in a post 2016/2017/2018/2019/2020 world, because it's going to become commercially unviable at some point during that stretch.

Regarding the moon:- he's pushing ISRU, a lot; "so, dust and 3D printers?" - "sure, why not"- asked about NASA's Mars ambitions, he sees landing on Mars "and other celestial bodies" as something for the future - something that humanity shall and will at some point achieve, but not necessarily during his lifetime.- He sees the moon as one of two parallel immediate post-ISS manned spaceflight projects for ESA (the other being LEO "use of microgravity" (commercial?) in cooperation with the USA)- Interestingly he's only talking about ISS in past tense - along the lines of "we have to look for the next thing"- At the end of the interview he (again) proposes landing humans specifically on the far side of the moon as his personal vision for a lunar mission, "not scientifically checked - yet". Not a new idea though, he has endorsed the far side quite publically over the past two months or so along with head of the ESA astronaut corps Thomas Reiter.

I could see this happening by 2030. It would have to be post-ISS because the funds just aren't there at this time. ESA could use SLS / Orion for crew transportation, and work on a lander and initial Lunar infrastructure themselves. Longer-term infrastructure could be developed in a joint US-Europe-Russia way, much like the ISS.

As far as NASA being willing to go to do the Moon with ESA, why not? I mean, NASA doesn't have anything resembling actual plans to go anywhere. It's very easy to change a plan that barely exists, especially when national pride is on the line.

We should begin discussions with all the Nations/Agencies we currently partner with for the ISS and begin to transition to a collective push for an international permanent moon presence.

We've been and will continue communicating, planning and executing with each other. Many such processes and procedures are already in place. We should at least see who could potentially contribute what. And bring in India while we're at it.

We've got SLS/Orion and all the launch and mission ops/control and integration infrastructure. We've got commercial companies for incremental launch capabilities for supplies as well as Habs (Bigelow). We need some assistance with Landers, ISRU, Rovers, CLECLSS, power, robotics, botany etc.. Everybody can have a piece.

It could be a program and platform for Agencies such as ESA to execute their desired programs against and have the support to perhaps speed things up a bit.

I suspect that we'll see corporate sponsered foot prints on the moon and Mars before we see either ESA or Nasa going to either one.

ESA and Nasa are both too underfunded to accomplish this in any sort of reasonable timeframe, and NASA has been buracritized to deth both by Congress and in house.

If they were to outsource the design, building and testing of a lunar or Mars lander, I'm fairly certain that some company, with recent experience with launching and landing of large spacecraft and their stages, would probably be able to come up with, build and test a reusable craft of this sort in a fairly short time. So long as they could establish the infrastructure to support more than "Boots and Flag" missions that is.

I reckon this link should be put in the OP. If that link is what this is all about it is actually very moderate.

It is basically saying "The US seems to be thinking of a base in high lunar orbit. We would like to tag along, sort of like with the ISS. We are also thinking of more robotic missions to the moon in cooperation with the russians, so we could do teleoperation from this base as well.. Manned missions could be after all that but we are not even going to insult you with a powerpoint of that architecture".

Johann-Dietrich Wörner, the new director-general of the European Space Agency (ESA), is only a few weeks into his job but already has ambitious plans. At the UK Space Conference 2015 in Liverpool last week, Wörner said that once the International Space Station has been decommissioned, probably after 2024, he would like to see a “village on the Moon” — a manned base that is both an international research station and a platform from which to explore space. Wörner, a civil engineer and former chairman of the German Aerospace Center (DLR), spoke to Nature about leading ESA and his views on the next steps in human exploration.

I don't is why taking fuel to a depot will be cheaper than taking the fuel up with the other vehicles. And, I certainly don't see any savings to be such that it will cover the cost of developing and maintaining a depot. Has anyone quantified the cost compairison?

I don't is why taking fuel to a depot will be cheaper than taking the fuel up with the other vehicles. And, I certainly don't see any savings to be such that it will cover the cost of developing and maintaining a depot. Has anyone quantified the cost compairison?

Not even an SLS can lift a fully fuelled Mars Transfer Vehicle (MTV). A nearly dry MTV could be fuelled in space but launching 5 or 6 Atlas V on the same day would put a big strain on the launch pads.

I don't is why taking fuel to a depot will be cheaper than taking the fuel up with the other vehicles. And, I certainly don't see any savings to be such that it will cover the cost of developing and maintaining a depot. Has anyone quantified the cost compairison?

Ok I have been meaning to answer this for a few days, but the answer is very long winded, it also will be full of values based on assumptions I haven't fully explained, however I am working on something much bigger on a space industries economy and will be including this and more detail in it (I thought two weeks a couple of weeks ago, now maybe 2 months ;-) - it is a big project).

tl;dr well just don't bother if you don't want to look at a bunch of the details unless you want to take my word for it, if you do, then a fuel depot with existing LV technologies is probably about 1/3rd the cost of an optimistically developed SLS scale LV.

So while I consider the capabilities of the F9 US, Centaur and ACES, let us just consider a hypothetical two stage fully expendable launch vehicle which can at a maximum, and for $100M, deliver 25t to LEO and 5t to TMI and at the very limit of performance where payload is down to 1kg (presuming that like real world cases of current uppers stages that the dry weight of the 2nd stage is very roughly around 5mt) it can achieve a TJI (trans Jupiter injection).So first observation, but any space geek who wants to see more of all types of space activity is: “What if the 2nd stage were fully fueled in LEO, what could it do then?”Well it likely could take the full LEO payload to TMI, it could easily put 5t on TJI, and >1t on a hyperbolic to Pluto or any other Kuiper belt object. But considering the vanilla LV we have here without orbital assembly/construction and fueling you are not going to have HSF beyond LEO and you are seriously constrained on payloads beyond Mars or Venus. So what are the options: a) build a massive lower stage to make this LV 3 stage and put the whole uppers stage fully fuelled in LEO; b) design and build a 3rd stage that the existing LV launches (note that works with payloads about 5t and smaller but doesn’t address BLEO HSF); c) build discreet parts of a BLEO vehicle that can be assembled in orbit with no part larger than 25t; d) build a tanker craft payload that can rendezvous with an already orbiting upper stage and payload and partially refuel it; e) build a propellant depot, maintain it and its propellant store and launch any craft to refuel there before flying their longer term mission.Now there are other hybrid possibilities of those 4 main strategies, and possibly I have missed something obvious in the way of a simple alternative. However this is my base point for looking at the economics of depots (and by necessity the economics of alternatives).So if we look at alternative ‘a’ we have basically the brute force design methodology that von Braum used to get from V2 to a manned orbital craft scaling up and adding stages. So just to make a manned orbital craft using 1945 technology von Braun considered a three stage rocket that just barely put the empty final stage and a 1mt of payload into orbit. Here we are considering simply adding a stage (or enough additive cores) as a new lower stage. All solutions that come from this approach involve making a vehicle, that once developed and flown as often as the $100M hypothetical vehicle, would cost at least 4 times as much for each additive flight after development, but, in actual fact would fly far less often and probably, just on that basis cost 6 times as much. In terms of development cost, what everyone would agree is the most wide-eyed optimistic plan to develop something on the same order of magnitude of size (BFR) will come in at more than 30 times the cost of a single flight of the hypothetical vehicle before its first flight. So the ultimate cost of the system that allows 25t monolithic payloads to be launched from Earth to eventually be propelled to TMI and to allow direct launches of big outer planets robotic missions, would be at the very least $3B plus each flight at $600M. Oh and this really sounds a heck of a lot like SLS capabilities with much more optimistic costs. Say what SpaceX would be doing if SLS was their goal. However what we take away from this exercise is a new HLV capable of 100 – 150t of monolithic payload to LEO.Considering alternative ‘b’ which does nothing to address BLEO HSF on its own, this alternative would mean developing a stage optimized for the size constraints and maximum delta-V’s of the missions in question. This also comes very close to the size of the existing single engine Centaur. However in our hypothetical case we are building this from scratch designed to work with payloads under 5mt going to the outer solar system. The cost to develop the capability is similar to the cost to develop the existing uppers stage of our hypothetical vehicle and since this version is anywhere from 25 to 50% of the mass of the existing upper stage it probably only adds an incremental cost of $20M to our hypothetical vehicle and certainly its development cost will be much lower than the cost of development of what was needed for option ‘a’ and, at a guess somewhere between $100M (using wildly optimistic numbers based on scaling existing tech) to $500M to develop. So as a solution for getting payloads <5t to the outer solar system this is a very practical solution. What we get to take away after developing this is a monolithic roughly 20t space startable stage. We will consider this option as part of the solution for the next option.Now alternative ‘c’ involves a couple of sub options, one is that we limit ourselves to docking/berthing as construction techniques and the other that we allow more complicated construction. Completely automated systems I think can reasonably be limited to docking/berthing operations where building a deep space craft will build up with one or more of the space startable stages from alternative ‘b’. NOTE that to do this, we have to add substantially to the space stage from alternative ‘b’: docking/berthing hardware strong enough to withstand the full thrust forces acting on all docking/berthing connections when the tanks are just about empty; rcs and avionics to manage rendezvous and docking/berthing; low or zero boiloff modifications to allow the stage to be stored in orbit (side benefit is for secondary and/or tertiary burns for insertion burns at another body) until the fully assembled vehicle is ready; the payload needs the same sort of rcs, control system, and docking/berthing adapter. So what we have done is taken the technology from alternative ‘b’, added cost, complexity and significant mass to it, but freed it to move up to about 22t or 23t as the biggest monolithic payload that can be launched. I think a practical limit though would be 3 space stages attached to one payload without going beyond docking/berthing. If we do go beyond docking/berthing, I think we seriously need to consider that this will only happen with a human construction crew and while it would be possible to do this with the addition of one more payload which was a manned craft, in reality it would more readily be done in conjunction with some at least part time occupied habitat. So, for the sake of discussing how assembly in space gets us a 22t-23t payload into TMI, the cheapest option with automated assembly via docking/berthing would involve 3 flights of the alternative ‘b’ style of space stage that costs double to develop and probably another $5M per module for the avionics/rcs/docking equipment and of course the final payload. This option would mean, at the optimistic end, $200M in development, and $125M for 3 launches and $100M for the payload launch for a total of $425M for the additive cost for each mission and a development cost between $200M and $1B. Note this system is similar in capabilities and complexity as the Lockheed Martin Jupiter tug, including potentially an arm on some unit in this system for berthing. Note if human assisted construction is involved then the prices jump up considerably and we are around the same overhead as a manned propellant depot. What is very much worth noting is that this system, conceptually is at least a 30% savings over alternative ‘a’, and in theory could be developed far quicker.Alternative ‘d’, a tanker that refills an upper stage is often suggested as an alternative to, or the absolute basic version of a propellant depot. So, conceptually, the simplest way to create a tanker is to stretch an upper stage so that it is carrying about 20t extra propellant and has avionics, rcs, and berthing style manipulator, propellant tank connections, and pumping capability. The regular upper stage also needs some modifications to be berthed with the tanker and to provide a low or zero boil off capability as it may take a while to refuel. Also as with alternative ‘c’ the ability to have secondary and tertiary burns is likely to be desirable. One other issue is ullage for the propellant transfer operation. While there are a few options for this, since we are so far discussing disposable tankers, there are some options other than rotation, however if we use a centripetal system I believe the simplest would be to use the plumbing connections near the engine and tumble with the berthed refuelling target with to produce about .02 g at the bottom of the tank closest to the centre of rotation. Note ullage on the receiving stage is important too and unless venting is going into an active zero boil off recycler, there will be some propellant being expended during refueling. I am envisaging all the extra equipment needed on the tanker to weigh in around 5t and on the regular upper stage at 2t. Again a lot of this equipment is similar to what was needed for alternative ‘c’ or the LM Jupiter tug, plus the fuel transfer fittings. If we at 50% over the development costs for alternative ‘c’ but really nothing extra to the per flight cost we have covered off what needs to be developed here. This system has advantages over alternative ‘c’ – the efficiency of the final orbital vehicle will be close to the alternative ‘a’ version of simply orbiting the fully fueled 2nd stage but this could be done with 3 or 4 tanker flights (depending on the specifics of the hypothetical upper stage). More scalable than option ‘c’ for smaller than maximum payloads or mission profiles. For example if the payload is less than 25t and/or needs less impulse then there is some propellant available in the upper stage already left over from the initial LEO impulse and if only 1 or 2 more tanker loads are added to give the required mission impulse plus margin, but without the full capabilities. So this system would more easily get the full payload to TMI and for about the same price as alternative ‘c’ while, when combined with alternative ‘c’ allows for even larger craft to be assembled in LEO. While still limiting the largest monolithic piece going anywhere to about 23t for a cost of $425M roughly.Alternative ‘e’, the real propellant depot. Without going into excruciating detail on the design, let us presume that this propellant depot can do everything our alternative ‘d’ tanker can however since it is the depot it goes both ways: unloading tanker; loading target vehicles. It has an extensive solar array, for my purposes it would have a habitat section, active zero boil off, the fuel tanks rotate around a central point for ullage (there are numerous ways this can work but all of them have to also provide ullage to tankers and the stages being refuelled). Now tankers could be built with just avionics and rcs (so instead of an incremental $20 - $25M on a $100M launch, we now have a $100M launch of a tanker that carries 24t of propellant to the depot vs the 20t in option ‘b’, ‘c’ or ‘d’. Now, I am figuring that this propellant depot is created through $1 to $2B of development costs for a variety of things above and beyond what was needed for options ‘c’ and ‘d’ but including them as well. It also needs to be launched, and I am envisaging 5 (so another $500M) of our hypothetical vehicles doing that where the upper stages on each are tanks in the depot. One flight carries the assembly crew; one the habitat module; one the solar arrays along with the attachment adapter that allows the tanks to spin slowly for ullage while the habitat and solar arrays stay non rotating; one with the zero boil off pumps, heat pumps and radiators; and finally one with the station rcs systems, the sunshade, manipulator arms, berthing connectors to the fueling and venting ports on the tanker/target stages. So this option has a very healthy setup budget (my wildly optimistic $1.5 to $2.5B) but it has the capacity to be filled to the point of being able to refuel 5 hypothetical upper stages from empty to full AND can be itself filled at a rate faster than the other options by 10 to 20% per launch. As well the vehicles being fueled can be much more efficient (carrying less extra cost hardware and less penalty mass). So once set up (and at a cost less than envisaged in option ‘a’ for development) it would require 2-4 flights per fully fueled target vehicle at $100M each, and the target vehicle, $100M to $120 depending on zero boil off requirements for the mission. But the infrastructure would exist to assemble much more complicated vehicles in orbit and fuel them and the depot could be expanded usefully in a number of ways, but most importantly, if we lived a world where one group developed option ‘a’ and another ‘e’, but then we also had partial reusability on option ‘e’ tankers and brought their price down to $40M (FH3R), we could then mount 25t to TMI missions for $200M or less (incrementally) or about 1/3rd the option ‘a’ cost, or 1/2 the option ‘c’ or ‘d’ cost. One other advantage of the fuel depot is that each mission flown, only has the one refueling point of rendezvous and berthing, option ‘c’ and ‘d’ both have far more on orbit activities for the mission itself. Yes, the depot has to experience 2-4 tanker berthing events for each mission, however that is what it is designed for and in itself, at the time of the mission launch we know that has been successful enough to proceed with each mission. The final advantage of this depot would be to ‘right size’ the fueling for the mission rather than to have to commit to integer numbers of tankers in option ‘d’ or space stages in option ‘c’. Now, I still don’t see this sort of depot being economically justified without partial reusability, as existing systems plus the SLS will probably exist to compete without any additional development cost. However, with partial reusability we get tankers at about $1667 per kg of propellant. Even still I would press to wait for a time when we could have a fully reusable tanker vehicle and storing CH4 along with LOX at the depot as well as H2. Still even without partial reusability, there is a significant economic advantage over option ‘a’, and a slight advantage, over enough flights over the ‘c’ and ‘d’ options along with much higher reliability.I will be fleshing this out more for what I am working on for spaced based economy. But this puts some comparisons in place to the question as to “why a depot”.

I don't is why taking fuel to a depot will be cheaper than taking the fuel up with the other vehicles. And, I certainly don't see any savings to be such that it will cover the cost of developing and maintaining a depot. Has anyone quantified the cost compairison?

yes.

With the fillable transfer stage, sometimes confused as being a depot, the LH2 is used to maintain the LOX near ZB0, so a 'large' number of flights need to be flown in a short amount of time to mass the 100s of mT of prop, depending on moon or Mars.

With a depot, all the long life equipment remains on the depot, so basically adding power, a sun shield and refrigerators to a stretched upper stage fillable tanker. The development costs and maintenance is quite low over the stretched fillable transfer stage, but one does not throw way long life equipment. The refrigerators will be need for any type of ISRU as well. In addition, risk can be taken to launch low cost Class D propellant which includes reuse of LVs and in space propulsion elements.

While many advantages exist, the substantially lower costs of multiple missions is the principal reason for the LEO ZBO depot ( reduces launch vehicle size and increases flight rate to spread the fixed costs and the zero boiloff allows delivery over a long period of time with no waste; HLV product lines are eliminated to reduce total LV fixed costs as well).

The IPs can also deliver propellant rather than forcing a HLV to L2 architecture excluding all the smaller LVs.

Quote

"My answer was not the Moon village indeed"

So ESA landed on an asteroid instead....quite inspirational...like

NASA continued to send men to the moon long after the public lost interest so the most logical way forward is flexible path to *all* destinations. Unlike NASA, only those who want to build an operate decades old hardware do not want to push the envelope. Imagine landing crew on a asteroid or servicing the depots, satellites, tugs, or the habitats as PR for the Mars expeditions and beyond to the limitless frontier.

Its about testing artificial gravity, radiation protection and advanced ECLSS. I think this would be interesting and probably not terribly expensive.

The inflatable seems the more practical of the two, partly on cost/mass and since NASA wouldn't like the idea of setting Orion i.e. the crew's lifeboat on a long tether. The later was the reason Mars Direct suggested using a spent rocket stage for a counterweight as opposed to an active and vital element.

"The European and Russian space agencies are to send a lander to an unexplored area at the Moon's south pole.It will be one of a series of missions that prepares for the return of humans to the surface and a possible permanent settlement.

There was apparently a lot of talk by ESA officials about lunar exploration at the recent IAC in Jerusalem. You could probably find a bunch of links and post them here.

Consider that the U.S. is coming up on an election, and there are people in the U.S. space program who would rather see a shift to the Moon instead of what they consider to be inaction concerning Mars. So expect that discussion of U.S. lunar plans will increase over the next year. We've already seen it a bit with Bush's comments. Whether anything actually happens, there is no way to predict, but the chatter is increasing.

The only chatter I've heard is Jeb! stepping in it by endorsing the Gingrich 'Moon Colony' (I swear the man doesn't want to be president and is intentionally throwing the game at this point). This is a weird dynamic within the Republican Party, they reflexively oppose the Obama administrations space policies (even though it's actually the private sector driven, reduced government role policy) and seem to try their hardest to resurrect the old Bush Constellation program/pork and a moon focus because that was the last semi-coherent plan that a Republican president articulated (all be it never funded adequately). But at the same time Moon Colonies have become a source of total derision within the Primary, and if your moon program just consists of Apollo type landings and nothing else they come off as completely pointless.

"The Russian Federal Space Agency — commonly referred to as Roscosmos — just announced its plans to send humans to the Moon in 2029, RT News reported. It's part of the agency's ultimate goal of creating and maintaining a lunar station. Vladimir Solntsev, head of Roscomsos Energia, made the announcement Tuesday at a space and technology conference in Moscow; he noted that they are currently building the spacecraft for the mission now, with its first flight into space planned for 2021."

We'll see if the Russians can stick to their plans, but at least this puts a stake in the ground for them and the Europeans - although neither have robust economies right now.

Logged

If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

"The Russian Federal Space Agency — commonly referred to as Roscosmos — just announced its plans to send humans to the Moon in 2029, RT News reported. It's part of the agency's ultimate goal of creating and maintaining a lunar station. Vladimir Solntsev, head of Roscomsos Energia, made the announcement Tuesday at a space and technology conference in Moscow; he noted that they are currently building the spacecraft for the mission now, with its first flight into space planned for 2021."

We'll see if the Russians can stick to their plans, but at least this puts a stake in the ground for them and the Europeans - although neither have robust economies right now.

As much as I'd like to see the Russians engage in a robust lunar program, it is very unlikely. The messages on their space program are contradictory. At the same time they were announcing plans to go to the Moon they were also indicating that their space plans are being reevaluated:

After multiple rewrites over the past year in the wake of the collapse of the ruble, Russia's proposed decade-long vision for space exploration and utilization will be submitted to President Vladimir Putin for approval "in the near future," a senior Russian space official said Tuesday.

The document, known as the Federal Space Program 2016-2025, is a policy document that outlines objectives, programs and planned funding levels for all Russian government-funded space activities over the next decade.

"[Putin] has identified priorities [for the program] in several policy documents," said Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's space czar. "In the near future [he] will hear the report of [space agency] Roscosmos on the draft program in which all priorities are explained in detail."

Rogozin said earlier this month that the program should be submitted sometime in November, and his latest comments do not make it clear if this target will be hit, TASS reported.

The program was supposed to be submitted to the government for approval late last year, but the collapse of the ruble, ongoing launch failures and related mishaps, leadership shakeups at the federal space agency, and an industry-wide reform plan have all conspired to delay the final draft.

A draft was expected this summer, but in March a senior Roscosmos official was quoted by the TASS news agency as saying that the proposal had already been significantly altered, and "looks completely different" than it did when originally completed in 2014.

The biggest change to the draft was the level of funding dedicated to Russian space exploration over the 10-year period from 2016 to 2025, which was reduced by 10 percent between drafts to 3.4 trillion rubles ($52.5 billion).

Rogozin's latest remarks about the status of the program shed little light on how much money Russia will invest in specific space-related projects, such as today's announcement by the head of Energia — Russia's largest space company — that Russia will land men on the moon by 2029, government daily Rossiiskaya Gazeta reported.

It seems increasingly obvious the international community wants the Moon before Mars.

Wanting is one thing, paying for it is another.

Right. The hope is "the group" pays for it.

However, one has to admit via NASA the launcher and orbiter, i.e. SLS and Orion, and already underway. The missing ingredient is the lander. If ESA, China, or Russia wish to step up they offer to build the lander and, for bonus points, elements to create a Lunar base, and NASA would be stupid not to take the bait.

NASA also needs a cryogenic propulsion stage (CPS) to perform TLI and LOI, in addition to a Lander. That is something that ESA could also provide.

I have no argument with that. Ignoring the hubris of NASA fans, I say that ESA have the engineers, skilled workers and factories and machinery to design and build Saturn-class HLV's, crew-rated lunar-landers and almost anything NASA can ask its contractors to design and build. Admittedly, ESA has been slow in developing crew-rated spacecraft and systems, but the young ones on this forum will live to see ESA land Europeans on the Moon.

NASA also needs a cryogenic propulsion stage (CPS) to perform TLI and LOI, in addition to a Lander. That is something that ESA could also provide.

I have no argument with that. Ignoring the hubris of NASA fans, I say that ESA have the engineers, skilled workers and factories and machinery to design and build Saturn-class HLV's, crew-rated lunar-landers and almost anything NASA can ask its contractors to design and build. Admittedly, ESA has been slow in developing crew-rated spacecraft and systems, but the young ones on this forum will live to see ESA land Europeans on the Moon.

There's a possibility. I'm already seeing a few sources mentioning the ESA may actually be getting bored of the ISS game and is desiring to move onto more interesting projects... *cough* Moon Village *cough*

NASA will have Orion by the end of the decade, but (especially since atmospheric streamlining and testing is unrequired) ESA may be the one with a Moon lander.

NASA also needs a cryogenic propulsion stage (CPS) to perform TLI and LOI, in addition to a Lander. That is something that ESA could also provide.

I have no argument with that. Ignoring the hubris of NASA fans, I say that ESA have the engineers, skilled workers and factories and machinery to design and build Saturn-class HLV's, crew-rated lunar-landers and almost anything NASA can ask its contractors to design and build. Admittedly, ESA has been slow in developing crew-rated spacecraft and systems, but the young ones on this forum will live to see ESA land Europeans on the Moon.

There's a possibility. I'm already seeing a few sources mentioning the ESA may actually be getting bored of the ISS game and is desiring to move onto more interesting projects... *cough* Moon Village *cough*

NASA will have Orion by the end of the decade, but (especially since atmospheric streamlining and testing is unrequired) ESA may be the one with a Moon lander.

My thread in the ISS section about both France & Germany having second thoughts about supporting ISS beyond 2020 seems to indicate support for this view.

CNES's Le Gall: Europe has no lunar explore program. Moon's closer/cheaper/easier than Mars -- but also less interesting for our scientists.

There is certainly no unanimity within Europe on the Moon question. Remember DLR under Moon-fan Woerner floated the Lunar Lander project, which failed to attract wider support from other countries.

While ESA is planning involvement with Russia's Luna programme it is in instrument products where the interest lies. Namely the drilling and analysis package, which is planned to be proposed for use on other unrelated (probably Mars) missions, like for instance the troublesome French seismometer was.

Hello, I am new here. I am Dutch. And I am entirely fascinated by human space flight. Past December featured some big news for the ESA. And I think the mission outline for sending humans to the Moon is clearly outlined on this webpage:

Obviously it will be a combined NASA/ESA Mission. The Orion Service Module will be build by Airbus/ESA. It is the one and only successor to NASA's Apollo Service Module. ESA's goal is to actually kick off the first manned mission to the Moon (not landing on the Moon. Mission is to capture a lunar orbiting asteroid) by late 2021. The Orion can carry four crewmen though, and hopefully one of them will be a woman, and one of them will be an ESA-astronaut ;-).

The Space Launch System (SLS) / Constellation System will be carrying the Orion. I am already amazed about the importance of this rocket system. Because obviously SLS will also carry humans and cargo to Phobos by 2030 and before 2040.

Make no mistake: 8 years pass by very quickly. And if it wasn't for all the negativity in the world (politics, immigrant crisis, Islamic State), we would have been already way more enthusiastic about this mission :-). Just be patient. The human exploration of space will properly kick off again by 2018. And then during the upcoming two decades we turn a lot, A LOT, of unbelievable Sci-Fi into Sci-FACT :-).

Hello, I am new here. I am Dutch. And I am entirely fascinated by human space flight. Past December featured some big news for the ESA. And I think the mission outline for sending humans to the Moon is clearly outlined on this webpage:

Obviously it will be a combined NASA/ESA Mission. The Orion Service Module will be build by Airbus/ESA. It is the one and only successor to NASA's Apollo Service Module. ESA's goal is to actually kick off the first manned mission to the Moon (not landing on the Moon. Mission is to capture a lunar orbiting asteroid) by late 2021. The Orion can carry four crewmen though, and hopefully one of them will be a woman, and one of them will be an ESA-astronaut ;-).

The Space Launch System (SLS) / Constellation System will be carrying the Orion. I am already amazed about the importance of this rocket system. Because obviously SLS will also carry humans and cargo to Phobos by 2030 and before 2040.

Make no mistake: 8 years pass by very quickly. And if it wasn't for all the negativity in the world (politics, immigrant crisis, Islamic State), we would have been already way more enthusiastic about this mission :-). Just be patient. The human exploration of space will properly kick off again by 2018. And then during the upcoming two decades we turn a lot, A LOT, of unbelievable Sci-Fi into Sci-FACT :-).

Happy New Year!

Well, welcome to the Forum. And I must say your post certainly lives up to your forum-name. However, I'm also from the Netherlands and have seen enough of Euro-space to seriously doubt the reality-level of Woerner's moon plans.

There are no requirements in Ariane 6 regarding manned spaceflight. The chance of manned spaceflight out of Kourou is close to zero for the next 30 years. A new chance with Ariane 7 in 2-3 decades.

If we can no even agree to that, how is Europe supposed to lead a manned return to the moon? The unmanned lunar lander concept failed at one of the previous ministerial councils and the german moon mission failed in the Bundestag.

I wonder what Wörner is thinking? Getting public exited about space again? That would be a lost cause, because most people at ESA don't care about public opinion.

There are no requirements in Ariane 6 regarding manned spaceflight. The chance of manned spaceflight out of Kourou is close to zero for the next 30 years. A new chance with Ariane 7 in 2-3 decades.

If we can no even agree to that, how is Europe supposed to lead a manned return to the moon? The unmanned lunar lander concept failed at one of the previous ministerial councils and the german moon mission failed in the Bundestag.

I wonder what Wörner is thinking? Getting public exited about space again? That would be a lost cause, because most people at ESA don't care about public opinion.

Who says Ariane 6 is going anywhere, the way it's going it will be so late to the market it will be squeezed out by the competition and they will have to rethink the whole thing.

Hello, I am new here. I am Dutch. And I am entirely fascinated by human space flight. Past December featured some big news for the ESA. And I think the mission outline for sending humans to the Moon is clearly outlined on this webpage:

Obviously it will be a combined NASA/ESA Mission. The Orion Service Module will be build by Airbus/ESA. It is the one and only successor to NASA's Apollo Service Module. ESA's goal is to actually kick off the first manned mission to the Moon (not landing on the Moon. Mission is to capture a lunar orbiting asteroid) by late 2021. The Orion can carry four crewmen though, and hopefully one of them will be a woman, and one of them will be an ESA-astronaut ;-).

The Space Launch System (SLS) / Constellation System will be carrying the Orion. I am already amazed about the importance of this rocket system. Because obviously SLS will also carry humans and cargo to Phobos by 2030 and before 2040.

Make no mistake: 8 years pass by very quickly. And if it wasn't for all the negativity in the world (politics, immigrant crisis, Islamic State), we would have been already way more enthusiastic about this mission :-). Just be patient. The human exploration of space will properly kick off again by 2018. And then during the upcoming two decades we turn a lot, A LOT, of unbelievable Sci-Fi into Sci-FACT :-).

Happy New Year!

Well, welcome to the Forum. And I must say your post certainly lives up to your forum-name. However, I'm also from the Netherlands and have seen enough of Euro-space to seriously doubt the reality-level of Woerner's moon plans.

With all due respect, but NASA IS testing the SLS-rocket system now no? That's no fake stuff. And the upcoming moon missions are to be taken into space by these SLS rockets.

Well, welcome to the Forum. And I must say your post certainly lives up to your forum-name. However, I'm also from the Netherlands and have seen enough of Euro-space to seriously doubt the reality-level of Woerner's moon plans.

With all due respect, but NASA IS testing the SLS-rocket system now no? That's no fake stuff. And the upcoming moon missions are to be taken into space by these SLS rockets.

So why the dubious scepticism?

Not 'dubious', but realistic. Based on 25 years of experience interfacing with folks in space agencies all over the planet.

Here's a little education for you:

The EM-1 and EM-2 missions are not going back to the moon as in 'landing on the moon'. Both missions are 'proving ground' missions in cis-lunar space. Landing on the moon is not a goal of the planned USA cis-lunar missions.

The first mission, EM-1, is intended to thoroughly test the Orion spacecraft in deep-space conditions. The mission is unmanned and will do a single DRO-type orbit around the moon. Total mission time: 21 days (10 day transfer to the moon, 2 day DRO, 9 day transfer back to Earth).The second, EM-2, is currently scheduled to be manned, but the only reason to go to the moon is to rendez-vous with an asteroid boulder returned from a NEA by a robotic spacecraft (this is known as the ARM mission). This is again a 'proving ground' mission intended to further test Orion and technologies for going to Mars (such as deep space autonomous navigation, SEP, robotics, etc. etc.)

The overall 'plan' by NASA to go to Mars has three stages:- Earth reliant (International Space Station). The current YearLongMission and BEAM are examples of elements of this stage.- Proving ground (cis-lunar, but NOT on the lunar surface). EM-1, EM-2 and a few more EM missions will be part of this stage of the 'plan'. Most concrete programs being worked on for this stage are Orion and SLS.- Mars ready (go to the moons of Mars and later land on Mars). This stage currently hosts no projects and/or missions. Only early development work is being done for this stage under NASA's Advanced Exploration System (AES) initiative.

Then there is ESA. Their new DG (Woerner from Germany) is very pro-moon and has been advocating a manned lunar base, dubbed "MoonVillage", for some time now. However, NASA is not interested as they are going to Mars, not the Moon.And with this recent news it is becoming clear that the ESA member states are not exactly enthusiastic over Woerners "MoonVillage: http://spacenews.com/europe-hit-snooze-on-woerners-the-moon-awakens-push/

In other words: don't expect humans to be back on the moon anytime soon. EM-1 is already delayed to 2018 and will not carry humans. EM-2 is now in the 2022/2023 timeframe (per the latest from Charlie Bolden) and will be lunar orbit only. And the chances of ESA going to the moon are dependent on a very shaky European economy, and the Russians and/or Chinese joining the initiative. The Russians are likely not to do so given their recent massive budget-cut for their space program. That leaves the Chinese and they are mostly doing their own thing. India might join but they have no HSF experience whatsoever. Add to that the fact that Europe has no indigenous HSF capabilities and Woerners "MoonVillage" is rapidly becoming a distant dream.

Then there is ESA. Their new DG (Woerner from Germany) is very pro-moon and has been advocating a manned lunar base, dubbed "MoonVillage", for some time now. However, NASA is not interested as they are going to Mars, not the Moon.And with this recent news it is becoming clear that the ESA member states are not exactly enthusiastic over Woerners "MoonVillage: http://spacenews.com/europe-hit-snooze-on-woerners-the-moon-awakens-push/

In other words: don't expect humans to be back on the moon anytime soon.

I haven't been following that Woerner chap, but the ESA proposal discussed earlier seemed very moderate to me. My interpretation:* The US seems to be interested in a staging point in high lunar orbit, we are interested in tagging along in a similar arrangement to ISS. (To me this essentially is the ISS, The bit in orbit is almost insignificant compared to the supporting infrastructure and political alliances backing it on earth)* The Russians are interested in another run of lunar probes and landers etc. We are interested in tagging along with that too. We could also experiment with things like teleoperation from the US outpost. In the future this could be extended to manned operations.

The manned stuff just seemed a long term goal like the US's talk of Mars without hard details. This is fine to me because the important thing is that we start developing something like a DSH which is not just an open experiment like the ISS but actually represents hardware we can trust for months away from earth. We need both.

Landing people on the moon isn't itself a worthy goal. There are ways of doing that while spending a lot of money and learning very little, and those ways are attractive to entrenched interests. New approaches could end up going to new competitors and that is scary to them.

IMO the important goal should be to land infrastructure to the same location for the goal of ISRU. The exact ISRU goal doesn't matter because it is really about all the myriad supporting tasks such as power, teleoperated maintenance and so on. Start with robots and at some point sending humans would be a no brainer, if just to dismantle and clean all that hardware with a toothbrush.

Then there is ESA. Their new DG (Woerner from Germany) is very pro-moon and has been advocating a manned lunar base, dubbed "MoonVillage", for some time now. However, NASA is not interested as they are going to Mars, not the Moon.And with this recent news it is becoming clear that the ESA member states are not exactly enthusiastic over Woerners "MoonVillage: http://spacenews.com/europe-hit-snooze-on-woerners-the-moon-awakens-push/

In other words: don't expect humans to be back on the moon anytime soon.

I haven't been following that Woerner chap, but the ESA proposal discussed earlier seemed very moderate to me. My interpretation:* The US seems to be interested in a staging point in high lunar orbit, we are interested in tagging along in a similar arrangement to ISS. (To me this essentially is the ISS, The bit in orbit is almost insignificant compared to the supporting infrastructure and political alliances backing it on earth)* The Russians are interested in another run of lunar probes and landers etc. We are interested in tagging along with that too. We could also experiment with things like teleoperation from the US outpost. In the future this could be extended to manned operations.

The manned stuff just seemed a long term goal like the US's talk of Mars without hard details. This is fine to me because the important thing is that we start developing something like a DSH which is not just an open experiment like the ISS but actually represents hardware we can trust for months away from earth. We need both.

Landing people on the moon isn't itself a worthy goal. There are ways of doing that while spending a lot of money and learning very little, and those ways are attractive to entrenched interests. New approaches could end up going to new competitors and that is scary to them.

IMO the important goal should be to land infrastructure to the same location for the goal of ISRU. The exact ISRU goal doesn't matter because it is really about all the myriad supporting tasks such as power, teleoperated maintenance and so on. Start with robots and at some point sending humans would be a no brainer, if just to dismantle and clean all that hardware with a toothbrush.

What is the point of tele-operation from a space station near the moon? The delay isn't bad from earth. About 2 seconds round trip. NASA though has to get out of the flags and footprints mentality. Designing a human capable lander and launcher for every destination is not economical. Build the best spaceship you can, go into orbit and control robots remotely in near real-time that can live their operational life and die on the surface. Going down the gravity well to the surface and back up again just adds to the delta v that the number of mission stages and isp requirements gets exponentially more ridiculous. Cislunar transport and heavy lift are good tech to have to build that craft and to get to where it is staged at. If an international partner wants to build something that takes people down and back up, so be it, but it isn't a requirement to do worthwhile HSF.

NASA also needs a cryogenic propulsion stage (CPS) to perform TLI and LOI, in addition to a Lander. That is something that ESA could also provide.

I have no argument with that. Ignoring the hubris of NASA fans, I say that ESA have the engineers, skilled workers and factories and machinery to design and build Saturn-class HLV's, crew-rated lunar-landers and almost anything NASA can ask its contractors to design and build. Admittedly, ESA has been slow in developing crew-rated spacecraft and systems, but the young ones on this forum will live to see ESA land Europeans on the Moon.

The issue isn't whether the engineers are there, it's whether the money is there. It's not. ESA doesn't spend anywhere close to enough to land people on the Moon, and there's no evidence to indicate a significant change in funding for the foreseeable future.

What is the point of tele-operation from a space station near the moon? The delay isn't bad from earth. About 2 seconds round trip. NASA though has to get out of the flags and footprints mentality. Designing a human capable lander and launcher for every destination is not economical. Build the best spaceship you can, go into orbit and control robots remotely in near real-time that can live their operational life and die on the surface. Going down the gravity well to the surface and back up again just adds to the delta v that the number of mission stages and isp requirements gets exponentially more ridiculous. Cislunar transport and heavy lift are good tech to have to build that craft and to get to where it is staged at. If an international partner wants to build something that takes people down and back up, so be it, but it isn't a requirement to do worthwhile HSF.

Absolutely. You would never go to this effort just so that you can teleoperate to the moon. Far better to put some robots up there right now and see what you can do with 3s lag at a hundredth the price.

Teleoperation from the DSH is still a given, however.. if you have already decided you want a DSH in high lunar orbit, to have crew there soaking up some rads, and coincidentally a simultaneous robotic lunar program. Realtime teleoperation is just handing a game controller to one of the crew and saying "Try this!". After all there wont be much else for them to do apart from keep breathing. Hopefully we can get our technology to the point where that is not a full time job.

The difference between 3 seconds and instantaneous (at least to a human's perception) is still extremely important though. The gulf is almost as big as that between sending robots and sending humans. I think anyone should admit that humans are currently lightyears ahead at totally general dexterity than robots. Between these two extremes however is real time teleoperation. Maybe in the end it will not prove that useful before humans end up on site anyway. I don't think anyone here would cry if that turned out to be the case. But given the assumptions above I think it should and would definitely be investigated.

What is the point of tele-operation from a space station near the moon? The delay isn't bad from earth. About 2 seconds round trip. NASA though has to get out of the flags and footprints mentality. Designing a human capable lander and launcher for every destination is not economical. Build the best spaceship you can, go into orbit and control robots remotely in near real-time that can live their operational life and die on the surface. Going down the gravity well to the surface and back up again just adds to the delta v that the number of mission stages and isp requirements gets exponentially more ridiculous. Cislunar transport and heavy lift are good tech to have to build that craft and to get to where it is staged at. If an international partner wants to build something that takes people down and back up, so be it, but it isn't a requirement to do worthwhile HSF.

Absolutely. You would never go to this effort just so that you can teleoperate to the moon. Far better to put some robots up there right now and see what you can do with 3s lag at a hundredth the price.

Teleoperation from the DSH is still a given, however.. if you have already decided you want a DSH in high lunar orbit, to have crew there soaking up some rads, and coincidentally a simultaneous robotic lunar program. Realtime teleoperation is just handing a game controller to one of the crew and saying "Try this!". After all there wont be much else for them to do apart from keep breathing. Hopefully we can get our technology to the point where that is not a full time job.

The difference between 3 seconds and instantaneous (at least to a human's perception) is still extremely important though. The gulf is almost as big as that between sending robots and sending humans. I think anyone should admit that humans are currently lightyears ahead at totally general dexterity than robots. Between these two extremes however is real time teleoperation. Maybe in the end it will not prove that useful before humans end up on site anyway. I don't think anyone here would cry if that turned out to be the case. But given the assumptions above I think it should and would definitely be investigated.

Human dexterity on the lunar surface or in space is severely limited due to space suits. Therefore teleoperation has potential to improve feeling of presence compared to working in bulky spacesuits. If you dont believe, check kids playing games in virtual worlds sometimes.

I was also looking for sources of claims that 3s delay is a big problem for teleoperation directly from Earth, but haven't really found any.

As for needing new technology they could have done a moon base as far back as the late 1970s all that is lacking is the political will.

Not quite. The money isn't there either. Even if there was sufficient political will there would still be no moonvillage, given the appalling financial situation of many of the ESA member states. Other international partners, such as the USA and Japan have similar problems. I won't even start about Russia.

Another ESA Moon Village video. Still with an annoying "could be 20 years before the technology will be ready" at the end.

{snip}

Annoying but probably accurate. The official planning of the Orion spacecraft started in 2004, under the name Crew Exploration Vehicle. It is now 2016 and Orion still has not flown a person. Since they have to support full life support lunar buildings have a similar complexity.

Another ESA Moon Village video. Still with an annoying "could be 20 years before the technology will be ready" at the end.

{snip}

Annoying but probably accurate. The official planning of the Orion spacecraft started in 2004, under the name Crew Exploration Vehicle. It is now 2016 and Orion still has not flown a person. Since they have to support full life support lunar buildings have a similar complexity.

The idea has merit, it just needs funding. The video is also right that there's interest in the Moon internationally. NASA's priorities will likely be reshuffled again within a year, but even a conservative president might be persuaded in a joint operation with ESA.

I think the idea of the ESA is not to "go it alone" but to encourage an international "lunar village". So they would partner with Russia and with NASA and anyone else interested in taking part.

I think this ESA proposal has quite a decent chance of success. It's come at the right time, next year we get many robotic missions to the Moon with the lunar X prize and I think when they do cool things like exploring the lunar caves (astrobiotics / team Hakuto from Japan - the Hakuto team plan to lower a rover into the cave) and eventually the lunar ices too.

NASA and the US could have lead the return to the Moon but the current US administration is just not interested.

The ESA also has the advantage that they can co-operate with China which the US can't do. I think myself that it's best if China is involved in the lunar village rather than having its own base somewhere else on the Moon. And that also is a nice thing about the plan, that you can have different habitats there from different countries. Like the way the ISS has modules from Japan / US / Russia etc, but on the Moon can be separate habitats joined together. That way the Chinese for instance could be involved with a separately landed habitat.

ESA does collaborate with Russia, has done so all the way through the Ukraine problems. We have just sent the ExoMars demo lander and its trace gas orbiter to Mars using a Russian rocket. That was a partnership with the US originally, but the US pulled out of it. So I think future partnership with Russia is definitely possible for missions to the Moon. The US also if the new administration is interested in sending humans back to the Moon.

So, I think ESA does have a chance of pulling this off. Mainly because it is a space agency that other space agencies can collaborate with easily and because it has lots of connections with shared missions already (e.g. for China, ESA already has experiments that fly on Chinese spacecraft).

Like the way the ISS has modules from Japan / US / Russia etc, but on the Moon can be separate habitats joined together.

I would like to remind you that having ISS built from several countries' components is one of the reasons it was built so much behind schedule. Does not feel like a positive experience.

A village concept is different from international base. It could be individual self contained bases near to each other. They may share power and even transport systems, eg Chinese cargo flight carry a few essentials for ESA base.

This similar to how NZ and USA Antarctica bases operate, they share power and transport systems but are total independent.

A village concept is different from international base. It could be individual self contained bases near to each other. They may share power and even transport systems, eg Chinese cargo flight carry a few essentials for ESA base.

This similar to how NZ and USA Antarctica bases operate, they share power and transport systems but are total independent.

Yes that's how I understand it also. May even have corridors between them. But each of the "houses" in the village is able to function independently of the others, unlike the ISS where basically it is one system, with multiple redundancy agreed, for the whole place. For instance you don't need to do any raising of orbit, no propulsion to move the entire village.

I suppose one question would be, do they have a shared environment control system, or a separate one for each habitat? I kind of assumed that it would be separate for each habitat, but it might be an interesting question to ask. Maybe some of the habs have a shared system, and others are separate? I expect it would be like that, some habitats more closely tied together and sharing more assets than others. And a fair number of assets in common with everyone.

For instance the idea for the ESA to use 3D printing - if someone has a 3D printing machine up there, using regolith as feedstock (or whatever), then it's useful for shielding for all the habitats and it would be no longer needed for the first habitat, once the first habitat is shielded, so I assume they would just continue to use it to 3D print all the other regolith shielding as it is needed as new habitats are added.

That's also an incentive for new partners to join the village rather than to build their habitats somewhere else, that they have access to already installed assets like 3D radiation shielding printers.

Interesting, thanks! There's more about it here, a plan to send a fleet of lunar cubesats to Moon orbit every two years to help with communications back to Earth using a renovated system of radio dishes in CornwallCube sats in lunar orbit to help communciations with landers on the surface.Resurrected radio dish could guide GPS on the moon

How exactly would this translate operationally? Is it even possible to ensure supply rotation for a moon base using the Ariane 5?

I found this old paper for an ESA lunar lander which estimates 1-2 tons of landed payload for a single launch. This could be used to deploy scientific payloads like rovers but if you add the overhead of pressurization you get very little for logistics.

Cooperating with NASA might make sense, the SLS could be used to deploy large-ish pieces of infrastructure for the base.

This is where the discussion on another thread comes in about the "threshold of pain" of the cost of sustainment for a permanent Lunar base. Once a program is defined that meets that criteria it will likely continue regardless of transitions. This has been the problem in the past for a Lunar base or even just and extended period Lunar exploration program. Once the coalition disappeared so did the program.

So for any lasting program the costs need to be significantly lower than those being thrown around. Being on the outside of congress we don't know where that threshold lies and possibly even congress itself doesn't know either. It is obviously a value that moves around but for a viable program it needs to be at a cost under the possible minimum which is definitely around or below that of the ISS or SLS/Orion programs.

Its a good first step back to moon. If cubesats it delivers can also act as comms relays then they could cover a large part of moon in one mission. Makes things a simpler for landers and rovers.

One of my favourite ideas is Solar Power Satellites beaming power via laser to rovers and landers. Even few 100Ws every few hours should enable them to survive lunar night. There is FISO podcast on this concept, around a couple years ago.

Its a good first step back to moon. If cubesats it delivers can also act as comms relays then they could cover a large part of moon in one mission. Makes things a simpler for landers and rovers.

Yes, sounds like a plan. Goonhilly and SSTL seem two solid, lean and mean small companies. But the overall Lunar Village vision has, I fear, less than a chance in hell of being funded by ESA. I hope I'm wrong. In the meantime, best wishes to Goonhilly and SSTL for their 2019 mission!

ESA, NASA, JAXA and Canda have been quietly working on lunar surface exploration architecture and here it is. Not funded, but without a detailed plan and cost estimate they can't ask governments for funding.

Canada + ESA for rover development. ESA ascent stage, JAXA descent stage. NASA would most likely provide some help but lion share of development costs will be on 3 international partners.

I think it is good plan, with large chunk be reusable. Bang for bucks it is very good considering each mission results in 168 man days on surface. Still comes down to funding ($20B) which ESA may struggle with given their large input.

This robotic mission makes lot more sense now as it tests a lot of human mission systems. Descent and ascent engines along with RTG and landing systems. They also get robotic lander to support human surface mission. A RTG power rover with life of 2yrs would allow for a lot exploration. Unlike Curiosity, lunar rover could be driven with next to no latency from DSG and only few seconds from earth, using DSG as comms relay.

This robotic mission makes lot more sense now as it tests a lot of human mission systems. Descent and ascent engines along with RTG and landing systems. They also get robotic lander to support human surface mission. A RTG power rover with life of 2yrs would allow for a lot exploration. Unlike Curiosity, lunar rover could be driven with next to no latency from DSG and only few seconds from earth, using DSG as comms relay.

Assuming DSG is there... you can never be sure of space mission funding these days :-(

..I think it is good plan, with large chunk be reusable. Bang for bucks it is very good considering each mission results in 168 man days on surface. ...

I think completely the opposite. IMO anything serious should start with much more substantial robotic/telerobotic presence on the surface, building up to a human landing. If you aren't building a lunar DEXTRE as the first thing, you are doing it wrong.

I'm all for ISRU and robotic base but we could be waiting a while for this happen and who is going to pay for it. If they wait for ISRU it may never happen. Better to plan mission with what is at hand and hope future commercial developments help reduce mission cost.

The likes of Blue NG, Space FH or ITS and ULA distributed launch could all help bring mission costs down. When it comes to crewed lander and rover I don't see any commercial company planning to build these without government funding and technology input.

ESA, NASA, JAXA and Canda have been quietly working on lunar surface exploration architecture and here it is. Not funded, but without a detailed plan and cost estimate they can't ask governments for funding.

Canada + ESA for rover development. ESA ascent stage, JAXA descent stage. NASA would most likely provide some help but lion share of development costs will be on 3 international partners.

I think it is good plan, with large chunk be reusable. Bang for bucks it is very good considering each mission results in 168 man days on surface. Still comes down to funding ($20B) which ESA may struggle with given their large input.

The brilliance behind this approach is that it build payloads for SLS.

"Rather than develop a complete lander mission from scratch – a long and costly process – ESA wants to buy a ride on a commercial lander to deliver our precious research equipment safely to the surface. Once there, we are ready to pay the ‘roaming charges’ to talk to our hardware."

..I think it is good plan, with large chunk be reusable. Bang for bucks it is very good considering each mission results in 168 man days on surface. ...

I think completely the opposite. IMO anything serious should start with much more substantial robotic/telerobotic presence on the surface, building up to a human landing. If you aren't building a lunar DEXTRE as the first thing, you are doing it wrong.

I think the main question is why do you want to go to the moon? Science, resource exploitation, flags and footprints ... ?

One of side benefits of 42day lunar stay is study long term effects of low gravity on human body. I don't think this was driving factor in 42day design more case of trying to maximus exploration time on surface.

{snip}Why? Because HSF is extremely costly, and only worth it if doing something robots can't.

If you keep to things with this discipline, then you get the best split of human/robotic/technology from economics/business perspective.

Space has been ultimately "gamed to death". We've tweaked it to the point where we don't think rationally about anything but the narrowest of mission footprint. Because of resource starvation. This screws up economics due to overreach.

Root benefit of this approach instead of heritage - you get less wasted intermediate resources/hab need at way stations to get to exploration site. (Enroute vehicles and exploration site/vehicles still have same resource/hab needs.)

Bottom line - you need to have little/none hab on DSG's/other way stations, because it is a complete waste to exploration - they are only places to allow accumulation of automated vehicles/logistics awaiting phasing/window of next mission step. And if you do need more for some kind of on orbit mission, then you build it as a separate automated mission to purpose there, just like other missions.

Don't overbuild DSG. It works against you.

The DSG then becomes a motel and gas station in space. Small town gas stations also service cars.

If you aren't building a lunar DEXTRE as the first thing, you are doing it wrong.

Too far away.

What are you referring to here ? Dextre works decently on ISS, with almost a decade of learning and future improvement plans into the architecture available now. Even without hardware upgrades, it has slowly gained more capabilities over time. There have been other telerobotic orbital demos, and of course Lunokhods.

What does 'too far away' mean ?

EDIT: And obviously, lunar derivative of Dextre would be built slightly differently, not a 1-1 copy, that part should be obvious.

OK, this makes more sense, i thought you were talking about physical distance.

I obviously don't agree with 'too far'. I think this entire thing needs to be approached from building up robotic capabilities first point of view, otherwise it's never going to be sustainable. And by capabilities i don't mean sending scientific instruments or 'exploration', i mean things like construction, assembly, site preparation, deployment of equipment, laying cable, even on-site fabrication, and yes, eventually also cooking raw materials like oxygen out of the soil.

It is entirely possible to approach entire core base design so that it can be set up fully using remote operations only.

IMO humans should follow only after a core facility is there, that includes robust power architecture, consumables resupply and recycling is validated, regular radiation protection and emergency flare shelters exist, etc. I.e. in ISS terms far closer to the 'core complete' than Unity and Zarya docking.

I do find that presentation encouraging. It's not a perfect scheme, but it does adapt to the limitations both Orion and DSG have. The biggest bonuses I note of it are a reusable upper stage lander, LOX/CH4 fueled landings, and 2 crew rovers for mobility and long-term stays. I would still pick a Mars-centric route for NASA but if ESA, JAXA, ect can deliver elements like these (even without the ISRO) I'd happily endorse NASA in a lunar supporting role which would be the strengths of the DSG and Orion.

This architecture is lower cost than base and better for exploration. With base you are limited to area around it, while this concept can explore totally different regions every mission. A year between missions gives rovers plenty of time to drive between locations and rendevous with crew lander. In process the unmanned rovers explore new areas with option of picking up lots of samples for crew to examine.

I like the above Design Reference Mission Architecture! Not as good as a fully-fledged Lunar Outpost; but much cheaper than an Outpost and certainly much better than week-long sortie missions that used to be the Constellation Design Reference Mission. A lot of ground and technology development could be broken with this architecture which is an excellent compromise between long duration and Apollo-style grab-and-run missions. I also like the forward-thinking towards ISRU and operational maturity of LOX/CH4 propulsion systems - and their obvious pay-it-forward application for Mars missions.

I also note with a wry smile that some of the ideas in this DRM are eerily similar to ideas I've seen come up for discussion on the pages of this fine website over the last couple of years - ideas that several of you fine folk will recognize...

The Landers and Ascent Vehicles are not necessarily suitable for use on Mars - I realize that some of the vehicles depicted are just notional avatars. But in another class of 'we said it here first' - I once said that if the Landers and Ascent Vehicle chassis' could be over-designed to withstand greater than Lunar G and the thrust/acceleration forces, and that the propulsion systems could be fielded in two classes for Lunar first and then Mars later. 'Scar' these designs so that aeroshell and parachute systems could be added later for Mars.

Or; if Mars is simply off the table for the forseeable future - restrict the designs for Lunar operational conditions only. And if Mars should appear on the political and fiscal radar at some point, 'Mark II' landers and ascent vehicles could be boostrapped onwards from the basic designs.

One thing I noticed from the 42 day surface mission design is the reliance on robotics to do sample work during the bitterly cold Lunar night. Reliance on robotics and rovers during a manned mission is going to be de rigueur during Martian missions, I believe. So it's only natural that it might be even more so during Moon missions, with the environment there being even harsher than Mars in several ways. Operational experience in these fields has to grow I think, no question.

I listened to that presentation and it's actually pretty good. It's great that people are working on such architectures. If NASA would switch gears and shift to the moon it could actually get there together with international partners.

One observation on the architecture is that the 42-day mission is going to be the first thing that gets cut down to 14 days. Another problem is that there doesn't even seem to any attempt at investigating ISRU opportunities. I don't necessarily mean relying on it but trying to check if it can be done should be a major goal.

It's not completely known or proven that extracting water from permanently shadowed is possible. But if is then the potential impact is so huge that answering this question should be the top priority of any manned lunar program. This can actually be done with unmanned rovers, piloted either from Earth or DSG.

The architecture reuses the rovers, this requires them to survive the cold of lunar nights. So the prime difference between a 14 day mission and a 42 day mission is the groceries - food, water and air. If the cold of night destroys the rovers then each mission needs to bring a new set of rovers - very expensive.

A cost comparison between two 42 day reusable rovers that are used for say 5 missions against 5 sets of two 14 day expendable rovers will probably be worthwhile. Include transportation to the Moon costs.

It's not completely known or proven that extracting water from permanently shadowed is possible. But if is then the potential impact is so huge that answering this question should be the top priority of any manned lunar program. This can actually be done with unmanned rovers, piloted either from Earth or DSG.

This is HSF exploration, ISRU robotic missions are separate projects. ESA are talking about using commercial landers for ISRU robotic mission, see post above. NASA is also becoming more interested in robotic missions using commercial landers.

Its better that ISRU is not in critical path for manned lunar exploration but run in parallel. For manned base ISRU is critical but not for exploration missions.

It's disappointing to me to have a bunch of government agencies come out with yet another reference mission that ignores SpaceX's ITS/BFR plans. Of course the SpaceX plans might not pan out, but the same is true of the government reference missions. I would have hopped that they would start taking SpaceX seriously and at least try to work with them instead of making long-term plans that ignore the SpaceX plans.

I guess the government space agencies still feel too threatened by SpaceX. It's a shame.

It's disappointing to me to have a bunch of government agencies come out with yet another reference mission that ignores SpaceX's ITS/BFR plans. Of course the SpaceX plans might not pan out, but the same is true of the government reference missions. I would have hopped that they would start taking SpaceX seriously and at least try to work with them instead of making long-term plans that ignore the SpaceX plans.

I guess the government space agencies still feel too threatened by SpaceX. It's a shame.

I would like to see them acknowledge the ITS too, but I think it's because the ITS is way beyond the scope of any other proposal to send humans beyond Earth orbit. They might think it's "low TRL," "too ambitious," "overly optimistic," "too much risk on the critical path," etc.

It's disappointing to me to have a bunch of government agencies come out with yet another reference mission that ignores SpaceX's ITS/BFR plans. Of course the SpaceX plans might not pan out, but the same is true of the government reference missions. I would have hopped that they would start taking SpaceX seriously and at least try to work with them instead of making long-term plans that ignore the SpaceX plans.

I guess the government space agencies still feel too threatened by SpaceX. It's a shame.

You go with what you have. Currently the ITS/BFR is a paper rocket. It has not flown yet and may not have fired a full set of engines.

Seeing the remarks regarding the 42 stay period... I doubt they'd do that with the first mission. The first manned mission - only the seventh human landing - would probably try to stretch the Apollo 17 achievement of nearly 80 hours by another day or so. Then, a week, then doubling that to 14 days. Staying for a lunar night where it can get so darned cold will be an engineering challenge. I know they don't have plans at this stage to do any lunar night EVAs, but that would be an interesting spacesuit design challenge! Also; imagine doing on EVA during lunar night if there's a full Earth above - much brighter on the surface than a full Moon night on Earth would be

« Last Edit: 09/24/2017 01:52 AM by MATTBLAK »

Logged

"Those who can't, Blog". 'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!!(crickets chirping)

This thread is about ESA moon plans, there 100s of SpaceX threads if you want discuss them and their vehicles.

Yes - me and Spaceghost1962 wrote lots about Dragon-derived lunar landers in another thread, a few months back. Some good ideas were in there. (The prospective launcher was Falcon Heavy). If I could find that thread; I'd paste the link so those who wanted to could jump to that thread and catch up.

Logged

"Those who can't, Blog". 'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!!(crickets chirping)

ESA, NASA, JAXA and Canda have been quietly working on lunar surface exploration architecture and here it is. Not funded, but without a detailed plan and cost estimate they can't ask governments for funding.

Canada + ESA for rover development. ESA ascent stage, JAXA descent stage. NASA would most likely provide some help but lion share of development costs will be on 3 international partners.

I think it is good plan, with large chunk be reusable. Bang for bucks it is very good considering each mission results in 168 man days on surface. Still comes down to funding ($20B) which ESA may struggle with given their large input.

This thread is about ESA moon plans, there 100s of SpaceX threads if you want discuss them and their vehicles.

I disagree, commercial space participation is definitely on topic, in fact it's specifically asked during the Q&A, and an interesting discussion followed. SpaceX was not mentioned, but Bezos was mentioned by name. It looks like the presenters would welcome commercial space participation in the form of small cargo landers, but they don't think commercial space can do large cargo or human landers. There're some mentioning of DSG being the forefront of testing how commercial space can participate.

This thread is about ESA moon plans, there 100s of SpaceX threads if you want discuss them and their vehicles.

I disagree, commercial space participation is definitely on topic, in fact it's specifically asked during the Q&A, and an interesting discussion followed. SpaceX was not mentioned, but Bezos was mentioned by name. It looks like the presenters would welcome commercial space participation in the form of small cargo landers, but they don't think commercial space can do large cargo or human landers. There're some mentioning of DSG being the forefront of testing how commercial space can participate.

The reason Bezos gets a nod rather than Musk is "arsenal space" (in any national space ministry/agency) fears him less, because he's less ambitious (gradatim) and not motivated by immediate ROI, as opposed to Musk whose different ambitions require aggressive undercutting of the existing industries (PO's them by making things uncertain). (There's a existential threat that they all vanish - ESA/Ariane Group are the least challenged by this.)

Once they get over watching astros/adventurers board commercial space vehicles, launch and return w/o the need for it to be a national launcher, then things will shift. (Because the big money for the big rocket that launches the mission/everything has been the big political "investment". Also why Musk does not get any "buy-in" for ITS because it directly "owns" them. As it could/can only do.) They only see the big rocket right now.

The irony is that both Musk/Bezos are heading towards big reusable rockets, while national HSF wants many big expendable rockets. Which is why they are even begrudgingly slow to consider unmanned delivery of cargo/logistics/landers to lunar/other destinations.

The chief expense in maintaining BEO HSF exploration is the cost of maintaining HSF infrastructure - look at ISS and see what 5-6x that will do to budgets (the current means will be stretching out missions and hibernating cislunar resources like gateway). Best way to do this is automated logistics/maintenance/replacement and a narrow focus on surface lunar/other systems. Improves also with smallest logistical footprint for waystations like DSG.

(The second difference from Musk/Bezos is in landers - Bezo's only focused on exoatmospheric, while Musk's work inspace/planetary/"Earth" - which intrudes on DST's "territory".)

Had read paper has lot more information on crew operations, specifications on landers and rover bit vague.

There are few reasons they choose CH4 descent stage. Lower boil off compared to LH for LEO to DSG trip. Propulsion systems can be used for Mars landers. Option for lunar ISRU LOX refuelling. They didn't expand on this but here options regarding this.

Assuming ISRU is in place with LOX and LH being delivered to DSG by reusable LOX/LH tanker lander.For exploration missions a replacement expendable descent stage delivers it's self from LEO to DSG. At DSG refuel using lunar LOX and earth supplied CH4.When used to visit lunar base refuel it on surface and use it for ascent (crew ascent stage stays attached. CH4 may need to be imported from earth but can be delivered to surface by LH/LOX tankers supplying DSG fuel depot.

If flight rate justifies then descent stage could replaced with LH version especially for lunar base servicing.

While carrying the ascent stage around fully fuelled is waste of fuel it does increase safety. If anything goes wrong with descent stage crew can abort at anytime to DSG. Don't need to rely on descent being refuelled on surface.

Proven rover power and life support systems could be used for lunar base habitat.

For commercial activities eg lunar tourism a non RTG powered version of rover could be used near a lunar base for day excursions.

Building a strategic capability for advancing and sustaining human space exploration in the vicinity of the Moon will require the best from NASA, interested international partners, and U.S. industry. As NASA continues formulating the deep space gateway concept, the agency signed a joint statement with the Russian Space Agency, Roscosmos, on Wednesday, Sept. 27 at the 68th International Astronautical Congress in Adelaide, Australia.

This joint statement reflects the common vision for human exploration that NASA and Roscosmos share. Both agencies, as well as other International Space Station partners, see the gateway as a strategic component of human space exploration architecture that warrants additional study. NASA has already engaged industry partners in gateway concept studies. Roscosmos and other space station partner agencies are preparing to do the same.

"While the deep space gateway is still in concept formulation, NASA is pleased to see growing international interest in moving into cislunar space as the next step for advancing human space exploration," said Robert Lightfoot, NASA's acting administrator at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "Statements such as this one signed with Roscosmos show the gateway concept as an enabler to the kind of exploration architecture that is affordable and sustainable."

NASA plans to expand human presence into the solar system starting in the vicinity of the Moon using its new deep space exploration transportation systems, the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft. This plan challenges our current capabilities in human spaceflight and will benefit from engagement by multiple countries and U.S. industry.

Studies of the gateway concept will provide technical information to inform future decisions about potential collaborations. These domestic and international studies are being used to shape the capabilities and partnering options for implementing the deep space gateway.

The space station partners are working to identify common exploration objectives and possible missions for the 2020s, including the gateway concept. A key element of their study is to ensure that future deep space exploration missions take full advantage of technology development and demonstration enabled by the International Space Station, as well as lessons learned from its assembly and operations.

During the same time period and in parallel, NASA has been engaging U.S. industry to evaluate habitation concepts for the gateway and for the deep space transport that would be needed for Mars exploration. NASA has competitively awarded a series of study and risk reduction contracts under the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) Broad Agency Announcement to advance habitation concepts, technologies, and prototypes of the required capabilities needed for deep space missions. The most recent awards included six U.S. companies; Bigelow Aerospace, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital ATK, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and Nanoracks. Five of the six firms were selected to develop full-sized ground-based engineering prototypes of habitation systems, expected to be complete in 2018. NASA has also solicited industry proposals for studies on concept development of a power and propulsion element, which would be the first piece of a gateway architecture.

« Last Edit: 09/27/2017 06:19 PM by Chris Bergin »

Logged

You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

I guess that this is tangentially related to this topic. Goonhilly now has funding (partially via ESA) to upgrade it's 32m dish to provide deep-space tracking and communication services to ESA, other agencies, and the private sector. It will take about two years.

Until now, if you’re an entrepreneur planning future missions beyond Earth, you’d have to ask a big space agency to borrow their deep-space antennas. Now, thanks to the UK’s county of Cornwall and ESA, you’ll have a commercial option, too.

If you’re planning on flying a robotic or even human mission in the near future to the Moon, an asteroid or even Mars, one indispensable requirement you’ll face is the need for at least one deep-space tracking dish to communicate with your craft.

Today, however, there’s no commercial deep-space service available to rent – and building a new station from scratch all on your own is rather pricey, although would be justified for a spacecraft travelling to exotic locations like Jupiter.

ESA has three deep-space dishes, in Australia, Spain and Argentina, that provide leading-edge performance and full-sky coverage for tracking and communicating with missions like Mars Express, Gaia and ExoMars.

Later this year, they will add the new BepiColombo mission to Mercury and, in the near future, ESA’s Solar Orbiter, Euclid and Cheops.

“The amount of science data flowing in from ESA’s current missions, not to mention from future missions with improved instruments, is growing strongly,” says ESA’s Pier Bargellini, responsible for network operations.

“By the middle of the next decade, ESA’s deep-space communication needs for supporting today’s missions, like ExoMars, and upcoming spacecraft, like Juice, is expected to exceed our present capacity by around half.

“We are considering urgently how to bridge this gap.”

This is why ESA engineering teams are excited by a new initiative aimed at redeveloping part of Goonhilly Earth Station, an existing commercial station in Cornwall, UK, to enable it to provide Europe’s first deep-space tracking services on a commercial basis.

Under the project, a 32 m-diameter dish built in 1985 will be upgraded to provide fast data links for missions far beyond Earth – typically exceeding 2 million km.

Test links will be made with ESA missions such as Mars Express, one of the first times an Agency mission communicates with a non-ESA, non-NASA station from another planet.

The project will be initially funded through a €9.5 million investment from the UK’s Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership, a public­–private regional economic development body, and will later include a smaller investment from ESA.

“Once the station upgrade work is complete, in about 24 months, Goonhilly will be able to complement ESA’s own stations, and provide deep-space tracking for the Agency’s missions as well as those of other space agencies or from private space start-ups aiming to exploit the Moon or mine asteroids,” notes Klaus-Jürgen Schulz, responsible of ESA ground station engineering.

Goonhilly, established in 1962 and at one time the largest satellite station in the world, with over 60 dishes of varying size, is well known in the UK. Its antennas have brought iconic images to UK TV viewers, including Muhammad Ali fights, the Olympic Games, the Apollo 11 Moon landing and 1985’s Live Aid concert.

With the growing demand for deep-space tracking for both space agencies and new commercial space companies, the Goonhilly upgrade is an excellent example of how ESA can foster new business for European industry through engineering contracts to transform existing antennas into state-of-the art deep-space ground stations.

“Upgrading Goonhilly and building up a commercial capability to support future exploration missions is good for ESA and good for European science and industry,” says Rolf Densing, ESA’s Director of Operations.

Apparently the incoming leadership of ESA is speaking about literally reaching for the Moon after the ISS is deorbited. There's been hints that ESA, in addition to the international community in general, has been taking an interest in the Moon of late while NASA speaks of Mars. However, Johann-Dietrich Wörner (the new ESA chief) spoke more specifically about looking into a lunar base as ESA's next step after their duty with the ISS is completed.

If anyone has more details on Wörner's moon plans do post them here, as they seem indicative of a promising direction of human space flight.

As for this direction in general, I approve. We all know the basic logic behind the Moon: it's a helluvalot closer to us than Mars. NASA brags about Orion taking us to Mars...but by itself Orion can't safely do anything beyond circling Luna or visiting its Lagrange points; the fact ESA's building its service module seems foreboding coupled with ESA's lunar preference. ESA seems to approach this logically, whereas NASA is attempting a great leap when it can't honestly repeat the effort made 40+ years ago (a less-than-secret embarrassment shared by engineers and enthusiasts).

Unless NASA establishes the technologies needed for Mars (ISRU, aerocapture, maybe SEP), the Moon is the only thing in our reach. On the other hand, we already have the means for lunar travel: HLVs, a crewed orbiter...just add lander and the set is complete. Hypothetically, ESA might develop the lander and even spearhead the moon base it's chief suggested.

It's been 3 years since this thread started. Three years closer to shutting down aging ISS. Is there any even Powerpoint ESA plan for a lunar lander, etc.?

The plan is now the Moon Village, a robotic infrastructure build-up, not an ESA human lunar lander as the older posts seemed to suggest. There are follow-on plans along the lines of the Global Exploration Roadmap, including a sequence of human landings. All this is being openly discussed and ideas developed, but people are still trying to figure out how to plan this as an international and part-commercial endeavour, probably around the Gateway or other lunar orbit infrastructure. Don't look for hard plans yet, NASA's direction is still very uncertain and they are at the core of any international program. But that doesn't mean nothing is happening or that nothing will happen.

NASA want to start with robotic exploration missions using existing small commercial landers. This may build to robotic base for ISRU using larger cargo landers. The flight history from these landers can help with design of human lander. Maybe simple as adding cabin to flight proven cargo lander.

This step by step approach should result in lower cost system. If ISRU works out then straight off crew lander only needs half DV if refuelling on surfacing.

ESA, NASA, JAXA and Canda have been quietly working on lunar surface exploration architecture and here it is. Not funded, but without a detailed plan and cost estimate they can't ask governments for funding.

Canada + ESA for rover development. ESA ascent stage, JAXA descent stage. NASA would most likely provide some help but lion share of development costs will be on 3 international partners.

I think it is good plan, with large chunk be reusable. Bang for bucks it is very good considering each mission results in 168 man days on surface. Still comes down to funding ($20B) which ESA may struggle with given their large input.

The brilliance behind this approach is that it build payloads for SLS.